Utah Wildlife Board Meeting Larson – SFW Troy Justensen Jeff Hartley - BGF Bill Christensen –...

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting September 1, 2016, DNR Auditorium

1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Thursday, September 1, 2016 – 9:00 am 1. Approval of Agenda ACTION – John Bair, Chairman

2. Approval of Minutes ACTION – John Bair, Chairman 3. Old Business/Action Log CONTINGENT – Kirk Woodward, Vice-Chair

4. DWR Update INFORMATION – Gregory Sheehan, DWR Director 5. R657- 11 – Furbearer Rule Amendments ACTION - Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator 6. Bobcat Management Plan ACTION - Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator 7. Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 ACTION - Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator 8. Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 ACTION - Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator 9. Fee Proposal ACTION - Kenny Johnson, Administrative Services Section Chief 10. Expo Permit Audit ACTION - Kenny Johnson, Administrative Services Section Chief 11. Expo Permit Allocation ACTION - Kenny Johnson, Administrative Services Section Chief 12. Blue Ribbon Council Letter of Support ACTION - Byron Bateman, Wildlife Board Member 13. Proposed Modifications to the Mentor Program ACTION - Greg Hansen, Asst Attorney General 14. Use of Public Hunters to Aid in Deer Research ACTION - Justin Shannon, Wildlife Coordinator 15. Other Business CONTINGENT – John Bair, Chairman

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act - Persons needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) for this

meeting, should contact Staci Coons at 801-538-4718, giving her at least five working days notice.

1

Draft 09/01/2016 Wildlife Board Motions

Following is a summary of Wildlife Board motions directing the Division to take action and the response to date:

Fall 2016 - Target Date – Impacts of lead poisoning

MOTION: To add a provision into R657-19, Taking of Non-Game Mammals, for proper disposal of non-game mammals shot with lead ammunition as proposed by Derris Jones in the Southeast RAC and report back to the Board at a later time.

Motion made by: Mike King Assigned to: Kim Hershey Action: Under Study Status: Placed on Action Log: March 5, 2015

July 2016 - Target Date – Youth hunts on WMA’s

MOTION: I move that we add to the action log a listing of state youth hunts, their restrictions and preclusions on WMA’s and the feasibility of closing these areas during youth hunts. The findings will be presented at the next upland game meeting.

Motion made by: Byron Bateman Assigned to: Jason Robinson Action: Under Study Status: Placed on Action Log: August 27, 2015

Fall 2016 - Target Date – CWMU Permit Allocation

MOTION: I move that we approve the CWMU Management Plans as presented by the Division plus include an action log item for the Division to review the CWMU permit allocations and the entire process to ensure all CWMUs are on the same page and measured by the same mark.

Motion made by: Kirk Woodward Assigned to: Public Wildlife/Private Lands Coordinator Action: Under Study Status: Update provided to the Board at the August 16, 2016 meeting in Springville. Placed on Action Log: December 2, 2015

Fall 2016 - Target Date – OIAL Permit Allocation

MOTION: I move that we put on the action log item that the Division review the allocation process for moose, once-in-a-lifetime species, and other species to ensure equal distribution of permits.

Motion made by: Byron Bateman Assigned to: Public Wildlife/Private Lands Coordinator Action: Under Study Status: Update provided to the Board at the August 16, 2016 meeting in Springville. Placed on Action Log: December 2, 2015

2

Fall 2016 - Target Date – Landowner Association Permit Rule

MOTION: I move that we put on the action log item that the Division revisit the entire Landowner Association Permit Rule. Motion made by: Calvin Crandall

Assigned to: Public Wildlife/Private Lands Coordinator Action: Under Study Status: Update provided to the Board at the August 16, 2016 meeting in Springville. Placed on Action Log: December 2, 2015

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting April 28, 2016, DNR, Auditorium

1594 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah

Thursday, April 28, 2016, 9:00 a.m. 1. Approval of Agenda ACTION

– John Bair, Chairman 2. Approval of Minutes ACTION

– John Bair, Chairman 3. Old Business/Action Log CONTINGENT

– Kirk Woodward, Vice-Chair 4. DWR Update INFORMATION

– Gregory Sheehan, DWR Director 5. Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL Permit Recommendations for 2016 ACTION

- Justin Shannon Big Game Coordinator and - Regional Wildlife Manager

6. Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2016 ACTION

- Justin Shannon Big Game Coordinator and - Regional Wildlife Manager

7. 2016 CWMU Antlerless Permit Recommendations ACTION

- Covy Jones, Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator 8. 2016 CWMU Antlerless Variance Requests ACTION

- Covy Jones, Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator 9. R657-23 Hunter Education Rule Amendments ACTION

- Kirk Smith, Hunter Education Program Coordinator 10. Antelope Island Agreement ACTION

- Michael Canning, Asst. Director 11. Required Rule Changes resulting from Legislation – R657-5-4 INFORMATION

- Martin Bushman, Asst. Attorney General

12. Other Business CONTINGENT – John Bair, Chairman

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting April 28, 2016

1

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting April 28, 2016, DNR Auditorium

1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Summary of Motions

1) Approval of Agenda (Action)

The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we approve the agenda as presented.

2) Approval of Minutes (Action) The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we approve the minutes of both the January 5, 2016 and the April 5, 2016 meeting as presented.

3) Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL Permit Recommendations for 2016 (Action)

The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed 5:1 (Byron Bateman opposed). MOTION: I move that we approve to split the difference between the Division and the Southeastern Regional Advisory Council’s recommendations and increase the number of permits on the Manti unit to 275 instead of 550. The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed 4:2 (Mike King and Kirk Woodward opposed). MOTION: I move that we accept the Regional Advisory Council’s proposed permit weapon split for the Pine Valley and Zion units, which is 54% any legal weapon, 23% archery, 23% muzzleloader. The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Mike King, and failed with 2 in favor (Mike King and Calvin Crandall) and 4 opposed. MOTION: I move to add 300 youth tags to the any bull elk permit allocation, increasing the number from 500 to 800. The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed 4:3 (Donnie Hunter, Mike King, and Kirk Woodward opposed. Chairman John Bair broke the tie in favor of the motion). MOTION: I move that the Division stay with the 2015 elk permit numbers on Wasatch unit, leaving the permit number totals at 760.


2

The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move to accept the remainder of the Division’s recommendations as presented. The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we amend the previously approved permit weapon split for the Pine Valley and Zion Units to reflect 56% any legal weapon, 22% archery, 22% muzzleloader. 4) Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2016 (Action) The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept the Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented. 5) 2016 CWMU Antlerless Permit Recommendations (Action) The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept the 2016 CWMU Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented. 6) 2016 CWMU Antlerless Variance Requests (Action) The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously with one absence (Mike King). MOTION: I move that we accept the 2016 CWMU Variance requests as presented. 7) R657-23 Hunter Education Rule Amendments (Action) The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed 4:1 with one absence (Steve Dalton opposed; Mike King absent).

MOTION: I move that we accept the Hunter Education Rule Amendments as

presented.

8) Antelope Island Agreement (Action) The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously.


3

MOTION: I move that we approve the Antelope Island memorandum of understanding as presented.


4

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting

April 28, 2016, DNR Auditorium 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/audio/16-4-28.mp3

Chairman Bair called the meeting to order and welcomed the audience.

1) Approval of Agenda (Action) 00:02:05—00:02:34 of 05:38:55 The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we approve the agenda as presented.

2) Approval of Minutes (Action) 00:03:51—00:04:36 of 05:38:55

The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we approve the minutes of both the January 5, 2016 and the April 5, 2016 meeting as presented.

Wildlife Board Members Present Division Personnel Present John Bair – Chair Mike Fowlks Jen Schmalz Bill Bates Kirk Woodward – Vice Chair Mike Canning Covy Jones Boyde Blackwell Greg Sheehan - Exec Sec Mike Styler Justin Shannon Riley Peck Calvin Crandall Greg Hansen Judi Tutorow Ben Nadolski Byron Bateman Martin Bushman Phil Gray Kirk Smith Donnie Hunter Staci Coons Kenny Johnson Teresa Griffin Steve Dalton Jamie Martell Lindy Varney Guy Wallace Mike King Rick Olson Jay Shirley Justin Dolling RAC Chairs Present Northern – Bryce Thurgood Northeastern – Randy Dearth Central – Richard Hansen Southern – Wade Heaton Southeastern – Kevin Albrecht Public Present Chris Robinson – Ensign Ranch Ben Lowder – UBA Roy Hampton Miles Moretti – MDF Gene Boardman Perry Hanks Jon Larson – SFW Troy Justensen Jeff Hartley - BGF Bill Christensen – RMEF Mike Christensen Garrick Hall – Utah Farm Bureau Ken Strong - SFW


5

3) Old Business/Action Log (Contingent) 00:05:21—00:05:33 of 05:38:55 The Board had nothing to report.

4) DWR Update (Information) 00:05:48—00:25:37 of 05:38:55

Greg Sheehan updated the Board on the events that had happened over the past few months. Rick Olson took who as the Law Enforcement Section chief from Tony Wood, who retired. Roger Wilson also retired and Drew Cushing took over as the Aquatics Section Chief. DWR finished construction of the Lee Kay Center Fish Hatchery for the development of Tiger Muskies. Lee Kay will also host the Antler and Hide Auction, where the Division will be auctioning off hides and antlers that come from road kill or seizures from illegal poaching, on May 24th. The Utah Cut Slam rolled out a few weeks ago, and for $20 people can enroll in the program and will get a commemorative coin if they catch each type of cutthroat trout. Mexican wolves continue to be an issue, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is still trying to develop a recovery plan. A settlement has been reached with the settlement community who brought the suit and will receive $60,000 of federal funds. A final plan needs to be in place by November 2017. DWR has been actively participating in the recovery plan, and are looking to explore areas in Mexico as the primary recovery grounds instead of somewhere in Utah. The Northern Gray Wolf efforts are also underway with sportsmans groups to get a D listing. Governor Herbert awarded the DWR for excellence for the innovations of mobile apps. The Legislative Session has concluded. The Legislature made the decision to lower the age that youth can apply and hunt limited entry from age 14 to 12.

5) Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL Permit Recommendations for 2016 (Action) 00:26:18—03:01:29 of 05:38:55 Justin Shannon, the State Big Game Coordinator, presented to the Board.

Board/RAC Questions 00:41:29—00:53:18 of 05:38:55

Steve Dalton had a question about the Southern Region units, John Bair asked for clarification about the age class and swapping archery tags for rifle tags on the Deep Creek unit, and Kirk Woodward mentioned that he had received emails about the youth bull hunt.

RAC Recommendation 00:53:40—01:26:26 of 05:38:55

NRO – Motioned to recommend the Wildlife Board accept the Bucks, Bull, and OIAL Recommendations for 2016 as presented. Motion to amend and decrease the permits for Units 4,5,6 from 500 to 250. That motion failed due to a lack of a second. The original motion passed unanimously.


6

NERO – The motion to recommend the Wildlife Board accept Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL Recommendations for 2016 as presented passed with 9 in favor and 2 opposed.

CRO – The motion to increase deer permits on the Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael unit to 275 permits was withdrawn after it failed 10-2, the motion to accept the deer permit recommendations as presented passed unanimously, the motion to increase the youth any bull elk tags by an additional 150 permits passed with 11 in favor and 1 opposed, and the motion to accept the OIAL permit recommendations as presented passed unanimously.

SRO – The motion to accept the Division’s recommendation on the deer as presented with four exception; increase the permits on the Beaver unit by 75 instead of 150, accept the increase but split the additional tags in half between archery and muzzleloader with no increase to rifle permits on the Pinevalley and Zion units, and reduce tags on the Southwest Desert by 50 passed with 9 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion to accept the elk recommendations as presented with the exception of increasing permits on the Mt. Dutton unit from the recommended 75 tags to 90 and on the Panguitch Lake unit from the recommended 55 tags to 70 passed with 9 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstentioned. The motion to amend the motion to add 300 additional youth any bull tags passed with 9 in favor and 2 abstentioned. The motion to pass the antelope and once in a lifetime recommendations and presented and the amendment to increase pronghorn permits on the San Rafael unit from 9 to 12 both passed unanimously. Finally, the motion that the DWR come and report on what they’ve done regarding elk on the Henry Mountains passed with 8 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 abstentioned.

SERO – The motion to approve the elk permit recommendations as presented, except that the Book Cliffs-Little Creek Roadless unit keep the same permit numbers as in 2015, and that youth limited entry elk permit numbers be increased to 800, and that the Board open an action log item with the objective of improving drawing odds for youth hunters so that youth have a high probability of drawing a tag sometime during youth, and that the number of limited entry permits on the Central Mountains-Manti unit be reduced from 453 to 430 passed unanimously. The motion to accept the Division’s mule deer permit recommendations, except that the permit numbers on the Central Mountains-Manti and Abajo units be left at their 2015 levels passed with 4 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion to accept the remainder of the Division’s Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL permits recommendations as presented passed unanimously.

Public Questions: 01:26:28—01:29:22 of 05:38:55

Public questions were taken at this time.

Public Comments: 01:29:45—01:54:57 of 05:38:55

Public comments were taken at this time.

Board Discussion: 01:55:01—03:01:29 of 05:38:55

Chairman Bair reviewed the comments and recommendations.

The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed 5:1 (Byron Bateman opposed).


7

MOTION: I move that we approve to split the difference between the Division and the Southeastern Regional Advisory Council’s recommendations and increase the number of permits on the Manti Unit to 275 instead of 550.

The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed 4:2 (Mike King and Kirk Woodward opposed). MOTION: I move that we accept the Regional Advisory Council’s proposed permit weapon split for the Pine Valley and Zion units, which is 54% any legal weapon, 23% archery, and 23% muzzleloader.

The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Mike King, and failed with 2 in favor (Mike King and Calvin Crandall) and 4 opposed.

MOTION: I move to add 300 youth tags to the any bull elk permit allocation, increasing the number from 500 to 800.

The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed 4:3 (Donnie Hunter, Mike King, and Kirk Woodward opposed. Chairman Bair broke the tie in favor of the motion).

MOTION: I move that the Division stay with the 2015 elk permit numbers on the Wasatch unit, leaving the permit number totals at 760.

The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move to accept the remainder of the Division’s recommendations as presented.

The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we amend the previously approved permit weapon split for the Pine Valley and Zion units to reflect 56% any legal weapon, 22% archery, 22% muzzleloader.

6) Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2016 (Action) 03:09:53—03:59:59 of 05:38:55

Justin Shannon, The Wildlife Big Game Coordinator, presented the recommendations for the 2016 Antlerless Permits.


The Board asked what the projection was for transplant numbers, increase in fawn survival numbers, needing permission on Private Lands Only, and antlerless deer tags.

Public Questions 03:36:18—03:36:23 of 05:38:55



8

RAC Recommendations 03:37:39—03:39:44 of 05:38:55

NRO – The motion to recommend that the Wildlife Board accept the Antlerless Permit Recommendation for 2016 passed with 7 in favor and 3 opposed. The motion to amend the motion and change the Kamas Antlerless Elk Permit number to 250 instead of 500 failed with 4 in favor and 6 opposed.

NERO – The motion to back off the starting date to August 15th on private landowner permits passed with 7 in favor and 4 opposed. The motion to accept the antlerless presentation as presented with the exception of the public lands tags that have already been voted on passed with 10 in favor and 1 opposed.

CRO, SERO – The motion to accept the Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented passed unanimously.

SRO – The motion to accept the Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented passed with 10 in favor and 1 opposed.

Public Comments 03:40:50—03:49:30 of 05:38:55


Board Discussion 03:49:42—03:57:34 of 05:38:55


The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented.

7) 2016 CWMU Antlerless Permit Recommendations (Action) 04:02:11—04:23:53

Covy Jones, the Public Lands and Wildlife Coordinator, presented the 2016 CWMU Antlerless Voucher/Permit recommendations.


The Board did not have any questions.

Public Questions 04:20:23—04:20:25 of 05:38:55


RAC Recommendations 04:20:26—04:20:55 of 05:38:55

NRO, CRO, SERO – The motion to recommend that the Wildlife Board accept the Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2016 passed unanimously.


9

NERO – The motion to accept the CWMU Antlerless Permit recommendations passed with 10 in favor and 1 abstention.

SRO – The motion to accept the CWMU Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented passed with 9 in favor, 1 abstention, and 1 member not present for vote.

Public Comments 04:21:33—04:21:35 of 05:38:55


Board Discussion 04:21:41—04:23:07 of 05:38:55


The following motion was made by Mike King, seconded by Steve Dalton and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the 2016 CWMU Antlerless Permit recommendations as presented.

Mike King left the meeting.

8) 2016 CWMU Antlerless Variance Requests (Action) 04:24:03—04:42:48 of 5:38:55

Covy Jones presented the CWMU Variance requests to the rule to the Board.

Board/RAC Questions: 04:33:47—04:38:09 of 05:38:55 The Board asked about numbers and who determines the actual acreage.



RAC Recommendations: 04:39:32—04:40:48 of 05:38:55

NRO, CRO, SRO, SERO – The motion to accept the CWMU Antlerless Variance Requests as presented was approved unanimously.

NERO – The motion to accept the CWMU Antlerless Variance Requests as presented passed with 10 in favor and 1 abstention.





The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Kirk Woodward, and passed unanimously with 1 absence (Mike King).


10

MOTION: I move that we accept the 2016 CWMU Variance requests as presented.

9) R657-23 Hunter Education Rule Amendments (Action) 04:43:01—05:01:30 of 05:38:55

Kirk Smith, the Hunter Education Program Manager, presented the Hunter Education rule amendments to the Board.

Board/RAC Questions: 04:49:39—04:53:43 of 05:38:55

The Board wondered if it were possible to make the course a one-day course.


Public Questions were taken at this time.


NRO, NERO, CRO, SRO – The motion to accept the Hunter Education Rule Amendments as presented passed unanimously.

SERO – The motion to accept the Hunter Education Rule Amendments as presented with the exception that they keep the marksmanship test and open an action log item to update the curriculum with new learning standards and objectives that need to be covered by instructors passed unanimously.





The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed 4:1 with one absence (Steve Dalton opposed, Mike King absent).

MOTION: I move that we accept the Hunter Education Rule Amendments as presented.

10) Antelope Island Agreement (Action) 05:01:32—05:15:00 of 05:38:55

Mike Canning, the Assistant Director for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, presented a cooperative agreement between the UDWR and Utah State Parks and Recreation.

Board/RAC Questions: 05:04:38—05:07:16 of 05:38:55

The Board asked for a summary of how the money has been spent in Parks and Recreation.




11


The memorandum of understanding did not go out to the RACs.

Public Comments: 05:08:56-05:08:57 of 05:38:55




The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the Antelope Island memorandum of understanding as presented.

11) Required Rule Changes resulting from Legislation – R657-5-4 (Information) 05:10:53—05:17:24 of 05:38:55

Martin Bushman, Assistant Attorney General, presented the rule changes from the 2016 Legislative Session.

12) Other Business (Contingent) 05:17:41—05:36:27 of 05:38:55

Chairman Bair asked Judi Tutorow and Lindy Varney to come up so he could ask for clarification on the draw system. A request was made to put the following on the Action Log: “address everyone’s first choice first, and then if you draw your points are gone.”

The next Wildlife Board Meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at the Central Region office.

05:38:55 Meeting adjourned.

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting August 16, 2016, Springville Civic Center

110 South Main Street, Springville

Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 9:00 a.m.

1. Approval of Agenda ACTION – John Bair, Chairman

2. DWR Update INFORMATION

– Gregory Sheehan, DWR Director

3. Certification Review Committee Recommendations ACTION - Staci Coons, CRC Chairman – 10 mins.

4. Book Cliffs LOA – Voucher Request ACTION

- Covy Jones, Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator – 10 mins.

5. Pilot Mountain Elk Hunt Season Date Amendment ACTION - Jim Christensen, Wildlife Biologist – 10 mins.

6. Wildlife Board Stipulations – Damien Davis and Scott Hogge ACTION

- Martin Bushman, Asst. Attorney General – 15 mins.

7. Wildlife Implications of Potential New National Monument in Utah ACTION – Gregory Sheehan, DWR Director – 15 mins.

8. Aquatics Update INFORMATION

- Drew Cushing, Aquatics Section Chief – 30 mins.

9. Mule Deer Research Update INFORMATION - Randy Larsen, BYU – 60 mins.

10. WAFWA Update INFORMATION

- Byron Bateman, Wildlife Board Member – 15 mins.

11. Preference Point System INFORMATION - Lindy Varney, Licensing Specialist – 30 mins.

12. Action Log Item – CWMU Permit Allocation INFORMATION


13. Action Log Item – OIAL Permit Allocation INFORMATION - Covy Jones, Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator – 15 mins.

14. Action Log Item – Landowner Association Permit Rule INFORMATION


15. Transferring of Permits to Youth Hunters/ Expanding the Mentoring Concept DISCUSSION - Greg Sheehan, Director – 30 mins.

16. Other Business CONTINGENT

– John Bair, Chairman • January Board Meeting Date Change

17. Hatchery Tour INFORMATION

- Rick Hartman, Aquatic Hatchery Supervisor – 45 mins.

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting August 16, 2016

1

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting April 28, 2016, DNR Auditorium

1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Summary of Motions

1) Approval of Agenda (Action)

The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we approve the agenda as presented. 2) Certification Review Committee Recommendations (Action) The following motion was made by Steve Dalton, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept and approve Haley Bechard’s request to use Prairie Rattlesnakes and North American Porcupines in dog avoidance training as presented. The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we remove the geographical restrictions from David Jensen’s Certificate of Registration and allow Wasatch Snake Removal to remove nuisance rattlesnakes throughout the state. The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the proposal for the SeaQuest Interactive Aquarium as presented.

The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept the variance request for personal possession of a prohibited species by the William E. Christoffersen Salt Lake Veterans Home as stipulated by the Certification Review Committee. 3) Book Cliffs LOA – Voucher Request (Action) The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously. Chairman Bair abstained from the vote.


2

MOTION: I move that we approve the Division’s recommendations 4) Pilot Mountain Elk Hunt Season Date Amendment (Action) The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the Division’s proposal as presented. 5) Wildlife Board Stipulations – Damien Davis and Scott Hogge (Action)

The following motion was made by Steve Dalton, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we reduce Scott Hogge’s hunting suspension to one year and nine months. The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed with four in favor and one (Kirk Woodward) opposed. MOTION: I move that we do not accept the stipulation for Damien Davis. 6) Wildlife Implications of Potential New National Monument in Utah (Action) The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we approve the letter with the suggested corrections.


3

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting August 16, 2016, DNR Auditorium

1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/audio/16-8-16.mp3

Chairman Bair called the meeting to order and welcomed the audience.

1) Approval of Agenda (Action) 00:00:00—00:01:13 of 5:51:12 The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we approve the agenda as presented.

2) DWR Update (Information) 00:03:48—00:4:34 of 5:51:12 The next Wildlife Board meeting will be held in the Salt Lake Office on September 1, 2016. Greg Sheehan informed the Board that he was saving the majority of his updates for that

Wildlife Board Members Present Division Personnel Present John Bair – Chair Mike Canning Martin Bushman Kirk Woodward – Vice Chair Rory Reynolds Chris Crockett Greg Sheehan - Exec Sec Staci Coons Jim Christensen Calvin Crandall Jamie Martell Covy Jones Byron Bateman Karen Caldwell Kevin Bunnell Donnie Hunter Judi Tutorow Kent Hersey Steve Dalton Tom Smart Morgan Jacobsen Mike King – Excused Phil Gray Chris Wood Lindy Varney Jason Vernon Randy Dearth Bill Bates Public Present David Jensen Michael Stimak II Haley Bechard Stephen Chandler Roger Wilson Polly Hill John Schultz Mark Hill Ken Strong Randy Larsen Brad Boyle Todd Hansen Noralyn Snow


4

meeting.

3) Certification Review Committee Recommendations (Action) 00:05:30—00:51:24 of 5:51:12 Staci Coons is the Chair of the Certification Review Committee. She presented four variance requests to the Board for approval. Haley Bechard is a Veterinary Technician at the Powder Paws Veterinary Clinic. She has experience in dog behavior, handling, and safety. She asked the Certification Review Committee to approve a variance request to use Prairie Rattlesnakes and North American Porcupines in dog avoidance training. She has met all the recommendations from the Certification Review Committee. The following motion was made by Steve Dalton, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept and approve Haley Bechard’s request to use Prairie Rattlesnakes and North American Porcupines in dog avoidance training as presented.

David Jensen is the owner of Wasatch Snake Removal. In 2014 he was granted permission from the Board to do rattlesnake removal, but only along the Wasatch Front. Today he is asking to remove that stipulation and make it statewide. He has met all the recommendations of the Certification Review Committee. The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Calvin Crandall, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we remove the geographical restrictions from David Jensen’s Certificate of Registration and allow Wasatch Snake Removal to remove nuisance rattlesnakes throughout the state. Brad Boyle, Michael Stimack II, and Stephen Chandler represented the SeaQuest Interactive Aquarium. The Aquarium is hoping for a fall opening, and has satisfied all of the Certification Review Committee’s requirements, including an escape plan. The following motion was made by Calvin Crandall, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept the proposal for the SeaQuest Interactive Aquarium as presented. The William E. Christopherson Veterans Home has been using Red Kangaroos as therapy animals for veterans. The Certification Review Committee wanted an ethical exit plan, and has


5

significant concerns since they really didn’t get that. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the COR be granted to the facility rather than a specific person, as long as there was an ethical exit plan for the kangaroos. The Committee also stipulated that it does not want the public to come and pick up the kangaroo for photo shoot, weddings etc., because that does not fall in line with what constitutes as a “therapy animal.” Byron Bateman commended the facility for the work they are doing for our veterans and stated that they deserve a chance to continue that work. The Board had questions about who would be overseeing Noralyn Snow’s activity with the kangaroos, what the risks were for importing a kangaroo into the states, why kangaroos were selected for a service animal, and what facility the kangaroos would be going to once they reach adolescence. The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously.

MOTION: I move that we accept the variance request for personal possession of a prohibited species by the William E. Christoffersen Salt Lake Veterans Home as stipulated by the Certification Review Committee.

4) Book Cliffs LOA – Voucher Request (Action) 00:52:09—01:07:24 of 5:51:12 Covy Jones, the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator presented about the Book Cliffs LandownerAssociation. He proposed to trade the Book Cliffs LOA a North Book Cliffs Deer Voucher (840169) for a South Book Cliffs Deer Voucher for the 2016 hunting season. Doing so will keep the total buck deer vouchers at 13. The following motion was made by Donnie Hunter, seconded by Steve Dalton, and passed unanimously. Chairman Bair abstained from the vote. MOTION: I move that we approve the Division’s recommendations are presented.

5) Pilot Mountain Elk Hunt Season Date Amendment (Action) 01:08:13—01:11:42 of 5:51:12

Jim Christensen is the Box Elder County Biologist for DWR. He presented a proposal to the Board to move the Pilot Mountain Elk Hunt season date to the second Saturday, allowing hunters to have an additional week to the hunt the unit. The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we accept the Division’s proposal as presented.


6

6) Wildlife Board Stipulations – Damien Davis and Scott Hogge (Action)

01:12:12—01:39:18 of 5:51:12 Marty Bushman, Assistant Attorney General, presented a few suspensions that need Wildlife Board Approval.

Scott Hogge asked that his hunting suspension be reduced to one year and nine months. Law enforcement approve of the reduction. The following motion was made by Steve Dalton, seconded by Byron Bateman, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we reduce Scott Hogge’s hunting suspension to one year and nine months. Damien Davis was issued a citation in 2015 for trespassing on private property (Red Creek WMA) and was collecting shed antlers without a certificate. His big game privileges were suspended for three years, because he had previously been cited in 2011 for taking a cow elk, also while trespassing. The recommended suspension reduction is that he be suspended for 2.5 years. The following motion was made by Byron Bateman, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed with four in favor and one (Kirk Woodward) opposed. MOTION: I move that we do not accept the stipulation for Damien Davis.

7) Wildlife Implications of Potential New National Monument in Utah (Action) 01:40:55—02:12:12 of 5:51:12

Greg Sheehan presented the Board with a letter to Sally Jewell regarding the Bears Ears Area. Chairman Bair suggested that “hunting, fishing, trapping, and multiple use” be added to the letter. The motion was tabled so that Martin Bushman could incorporate the Board’s suggestions into the letter.

8) Aquatics Update (Information) 02:14:42—02:35:28 of 5:51:12 Chris Crockett presented to the Board in place of Drew Cushing, who had a schedule conflict. John Schultz, the Vice Chair of the Utah Anglers’ Coalition shared a power point presentation.

9) WAFWA Update (Information) 02:35:32—03:08:58 of 5:51:12 Byron Bateman represented the Wildlife Board at the 2016 Summer WAFWA meeting and presented an update to the Board. He provided a copy of the minutes for the meeting and went over the highlights.


7

10) Mule Deer Research Update (Information) 03:12:03—04:19:55 of 5:51:12

Dr. Randy Larsen is an Associate Professor from BYU. He presented an update on his mule deer research projects. John had a question about where he was getting his information in the past about the transplants and how he figured out it was so inaccurate?

11) Preference Point System (Information) 04:20:11—04:48:29 of 5:51:12

Lindy Varney is the Wildlife Licensing Specialist for the DWR. She presented information that the Wildlife Board requested during the April 28th meeting on the preference point system for General Season Deer. The Board recommended that the topic be added to the RAC meetings in November, and to the Wildlife Board Agenda in December.

12) Action Log Item – CWMU Permit Allocation (Information) 04:49:00—05:14:28 of 5:51:12

Covy Jones, the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator, presented a review of the CWMU permit allocations.

13) Action Log Item – OIAL Permit Allocation (Information) Covy Jones, the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator, presented a review of the OIAL permit allocations. It was recommended that we look at what a 50/50 split on moose permits would look like.

14) Action Log Item – Landowner Association Permit Rule (Information) Covy Jones, the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Coordinator, presented a review of the Landowner Association Permit Rule.

15) Wildlife Implications – Draft Letter (Action) 05:15:31—05:27:13 of 5:51:12 Martin Bushman drafted an amendment to the letter addressed to Sally Jewell that included the Board’s suggested changes. The following motion was made by Kirk Woodward, seconded by Donnie Hunter, and passed unanimously. MOTION: I move that we approve the letter with the suggested corrections.

16) Transferring of Permits to Youth Hunters/Expanding the Mentoring Concept (Discussion)


8

05:28:20—05:48:47 of 5:51:12

Phil Gray from the Licensing section informed the Board that the concept has been incredibly successful across all species. It was suggested that an agenda item to remove the relationship requirement be added to the September 1, 2016 Wildlife Board meeting.

17) Other Business (Contingent) 05:49:06—05:51:12 of 5:51:12

a. January Board Meeting Date Change

The date for the January 2017 Board meeting was moved to January 3rd.

b. Add a letter from the Board Supporting the Blue Water Coalition to the agenda for the September 1, 2016 Wildlife Board Meeting

18) Hatchery Tour (Information)

The meeting was adjourned so that the Wildlife Board members could tour the Springville Fish Hatchery.

JULY/AUGUST RAC MEETINGS SUMMARY OF MOTIONS

R657-11 FURBEARER RULE AMENDMENTS All RAC’s MOTION: To accept the Furbearer Rule Amendments R657-11 as presented. VOTE: Unanimous BOBCAT MANAGEMENT PLAN All RAC’s MOTION: To accept the Bobcat Management Plan as presented. VOTE: Unanimous FURBEARER AND BOBCAT HARVEST RECOMMENDATIONS 2016-2017 ALL RAC’s MOTION: To accept the Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations 2016-17 as presented. VOTE: Unanimous COUGAR RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULE AMENDMENTS FOR 2016-17 CRO MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule as presented. VOTE: passed 7 to 2 NRO, NERO MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule as presented. VOTE: Unanimous SERO MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 as proposed

with the exception that the southwest Manti be made a split season unit and increase the permit numbers from 5 to 8.

VOTE: Unanimous SRO MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-17 as presented

with the exception that the Plateau Boulder, Thousand Lakes and Fishlake units permits be increased by 30% and the Southwest Manti increase to 8 permits. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: That the Thousand Lakes unit be excluded from the increase.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT: Motion carries: 8 in favor, 1 opposed VOTE ON AMENDEND MOTION: Motion carries: 8 in favor, 1 opposed

PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE NRO Motion- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Proposed Fee Schedule with the exception of youth turkey

tags and mitigation cow elk tags. Recommend keeping youth turkey tags and mitigation cow elk tag fees unchanged. VOTE: Unanimous

CRO MOTION: To change the fee proposal for youth turkey permit from $25.00 to $15.00 VOTE: Passed 6 to 3

MOTION: To accept the remainder of the recommendations presented by the Division VOTE: Passed unanimously NERO, SERO, SRO MOTION: To accept the Proposed Fee Schedule as presented. VOTE: Unanimous

of 13

Central Region Advisory Council Springville City Civic Center 110 S Main Street, Springville

July 26, 2016 6:30 p.m.

Motion Summary

MOTION: To accept the agenda and minutes as written Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Passed unanimously R657-11 Furbearer Rule AmendmentsMOTION: To accept the Division’s recommendation as presented

Passed unanimously Bobcat Management PlanMOTION: To accept the Division’s recommendation as proposed

Passed unanimously

MOTION: That we accept the Furbearer and Bobcat recommendation as presented Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017

Passed unanimously Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017MOTION: To accept the Division’s recommendations as presented

Passed 7 to 2 Proposed Fee ScheduleMOTION: To change the fee proposal for youth turkey permit from $25.00 to $15.00

Passed 6 to 3 MOTION: To accept the remainder of the recommendations presented by the Division Passed unanimously

MOTION: To accept the Wallsburg Management Plan as presented Wallsburg WMA Management Plan

Passed unanimously

of 13

Central Region Advisory Council Springville City Civic Center 110 S Main Street, Springville

July 26, 2016 6:30 p.m.

Members Present Members Absent Danny Potts, Non-consumptive Ben Lowder, At Large (excused) Christine Schmitz, Non-consumptive Greg McPhie, Elected (excused) Larry Fitzgerald, Agriculture Alan White, Agriculture (excused) Ron Camp, Sportsmen Kristofer Marble, At large (excused) Richard Hansen, At large, Chair Jacob Steele, Native American (excused Michael Gates, BLM Matt Clark, Sportsmen George Garcia, Forest Service Karl Hirst, Sportsmen Kenneth Strong, Sportsmen

Jason Vernon, Regional Supervisor Others Present

John Bair, Wildlife Board Member 1) Approval of the Agenda and Minutes

- Richard Hansen, RAC Chair (Action)

VOTING Motion was made by Ken Strong to accept the agenda and minutes as written Seconded by Ron Camp Motion passed unanimously 2) Wildlife Board Meeting Update - Richard Hansen, RAC Chair

(Information)

3) Regional Update

- Jason Vernon, Central Regional Supervisor (Information)

Wildlife • Currently conducting elk and antelope classifications • Working on elk management plans • It has been a steady bear season with 5 bears re-located at this point • Preparing the hunt forecast

Habitat • Placing 5 guzzlers on the west slope of Timpanogos mountain; looking for DH assistance • Watching wildland fires and looking for opportunities to assist in rehabilitation where

necessary for wildlife • Hired a new farm bill biologist (Denton Nielson); he will be covering the southern

portion of the central region and northern portion of the southern region

Aquatics

of 13

• Access to Utah Lake closed due to algal bloom. It is subsiding and lake should be opening up soon.

• Release 9,000 6” tiger muskie into Jordanelle; plan to release 25,000 2” wipers in the next few weeks

Law Enforcement • Spending time at Daniels Canyon port of entry checking boats for aquatic invasive

species; have began writing citations for more serious offenders; using it as an education opportunity for boaters and anglers

• Officers are gearing up for the upcoming hunts • Lorraine hardy has completed her training and is now patrolling on her own

Outreach • Tonya Kiefer has accepted the Outreach Manager position in the northeastern region

and will be reporting there on August 15; central region will be filling her position soon • Hunts are quickly approaching and want to make sure dedicated hunters are

procrastinating to get their service hours in

4) R657-11 Furbearer Rule Amendments

- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator (Action)

None Questions from the RAC

Sundays Hunt/Director of Utah Humane Society – Does a person using a trapping device have the right to go onto private property and release an animal?

Questions from the Public

Leslie McFarlane – They have to get written permission to go onto private property.

Kent Fowden/Utah Trappers Association – We stand in front of you in support of the amendments as proposed. Thank you.

Comments from the Public

None RAC Discussion

VOTING Motion was made by Matt Clark to accept the Division’s recommendation as presented Seconded by Karl Hirst In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong, Karl Hirst Opposed: none

Motion passed unanimously 5) Bobcat Management Plan


Danny Potts – The season restriction: Why is it on the front end instead of the back end? Questions from the RAC

of 13

Leslie McFarlane – A couple years ago when we brought the recommendations out there was a request to lengthen the season because it may increase more harvested males instead of females. As we looked at that by week it actually did decrease female take if the season were later so we would rather take it off the front end and protect females. Richard Hansen – Each trapper can have six tags. How do you monitor someone using another person’s tag? Leslie McFarlane – A tag is assigned to an individual. It is the same as any other license or permit. You cannot use somebody else’s tag. Richard Hansen – But can they use the same traps? Leslie McFarlane – No. An individual has to use their own traps with their own registered trap number. It’s illegal to use somebody else’s traps with somebody else’s trap number. A trap can only have one permanent trap number on it. Larry Fitzgerald – I have run into traps without a permanent trap number on them. Leslie McFarlane – Those are illegal sets and you should report those to our law enforcement. George Garcia – In some of your strategies it says there will be a contact person designated but it doesn’t say by a certain date annually and will that contact person be made available on a web site? Leslie McFarlane – We do have their numbers in our guide book? George Garcia – It also talks about promoting and developing incentives for violations. Have you had those in the last ten years in the first version of the plan? Leslie McFarlane – It was in the first plan and I carried it forth in this plan, I didn’t want to change the mean of the document, I have only been in this position for a couple years but we haven’t worked on that yet at least from my perspective. I can’t comment on what was done before me.

Kent Fowden/President of Utah Trappers Association – First I would like to compliment Leslie and her ability to pull all the groups together and have an open dialog. The trappers and houndsmen and law enforcement have had an open dialog and been very respectful and the whole process needs to be complimented. I appreciate the work Leslie has put into this and stand before you in full support of the plan as proposed.


Troy Justensen/SFW – We would like to support the recommendation from the Division concerning the bobcat plan. We would like to recognize a few people. Kent Fowden we want to thank you and your organization for the time and effort you have put into this and also the data that you have collected to help make sure this is a sustainable plan. And Leslie, we know this time of year is tough on you but we appreciate you and the time you put in. Chad Coburn/Utah Wildlife Cooperative – We support Leslie’s plan. It is put together well and is a good plan.

None RAC Discussion

VOTING Motion was made by Karl Hirst to accept the Division’s recommendation as proposed Seconded by Ron Camp In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong, Karl Hirst Opposed: none

Motion passed unanimously

of 13

6) Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator

(Action)


None Questions from the Public

Kent Fowden/President of Utah Trappers Association – We support the Division’s recommendation as presented.


Troy Justensen/SFW – We support the Division’s proposals as presented.

Matt Clark – Is there any correlation between the number of permits sold and the pelt prices? RAC Discussion

Leslie McFarlane – Yes. You can see when we have a cap on the prices were really high and the number of people who wanted to participate went way up however in all of my discussions with the trappers association you either know how to trap or you don’t so even though that went up I think part of the decrease was that people found that it was a lot harder than they thought it was so participation went back down to historical levels. The price does help drive that number up or down. Richard Hansen – How often do you have to check your traps? Leslie McFarlane – Every 48 hours. Danny Potts – We have striped skunks in Utah but we don’t have any restrictions of them, right? Leslie McFarlane – Striped skunks and red fox do not have a season. However spotted skunks do have a limit and season. VOTING Motion was made by Matt Clark that we accept the Furbearer and Bobcat recommendation as presented Seconded by Christine Schmitz In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong, Karl Hirst Opposed: none

Motion passed unanimously 7) Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017



Chad Coburn – What is the reason for the increase on the Wasatch, West unit in Strawberry? It’s not on predator management and doesn’t seem to be beyond those thresholds. I just wondered what was the reason for the increase on that.


Leslie McFarlane – That is one of the areas where we have had a lot of livestock damage and we just paid about $21,000 in depredation to one individual so we are trying to bring those payments down. There is also another owner in that area that we paid about $18,000 to. Chad Coburn – I am blown away. We had 12 statewide and you know who I’m talking about up north claims that he is getting ate out of house and home.

of 13

Leslie McFarlane – He took care of his own issues with his permit. There is a little bit of room because we do have an older age objective. There is 50 percent of the harvest that is five years or older and female harvest is still below 40 percent. Chad Coburn – If we are looking at staying aggressive on all the other predator management units this is what I consider a source unit. Dan Cockayne/Utah Houndsmen Association – What is the status on the Central Mountains units that are all under predator management for deer, what is the status with the deer? Leslie McFarlane – When we looked at the populations there the models indicate that they are stable and not increasing which is kind of where we want them to be and the plan says increasing so that is part of the reason that they were put under and they were one of the only ones that maintained a stable status this last year. Chet Young – I have a question mostly for law enforcement about depredation. I was looking through what we have been paying these livestock owners year after year after year and we do major increases on the lions but yet I am not seeing what we are paying them go down it always seems to stay at a minimum. Are we looking into why this is? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, we work with Wildlife Services who tries to remove the appropriate animal that is doing damage at the time but we also want to try to use our sportsmen in those areas where we have conflicts and problems. That is one thing we are trying to work on is reducing depredation because we don’t want to be impacting livestock and they don’t want us to be paying them either. They would rather have their animals than a check from the Division. Chet Young – So does the Division have anybody that is checking Wildlife Services? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, we work closely with Wildlife Services. Chet Young – So in your opinion do you feel that they are honest and fair with their claims? Leslie McFarlane – Yes I do. Larry Fitzgerald – What is the percentage you pay for livestock? Leslie McFarlane – In order to qualify for a payment we get the amounts that are provided by the Department of Agriculture and in order to receive payment you have to pay into the head tax. Larry Fitzgerald – My question is do you pay the full value of that animal or do you pay a percentage? Leslie McFarlane – We are allocated $180,000 and this year we spent $148,000. If we go above the $180,000 then we have to prorate it and we only pay on confirmed losses, we don’t pay on reported losses. This year we paid the full amount that was confirmed because we didn’t hit the cap. Larry Fitzgerald – I know that, I just wanted you to explain it. Ron Camp – I assume confirmed means that you have somebody verify that. Leslie McFarlane –The livestock owner will contact Wildlife Services with a reported number. Wildlife Services will go out and try to confirm the losses or any additional that they can find. Richard Hansen – Are most of these sheep or are they also cattle? Leslie McFarlane – The cougar claims were both sheep and cattle. Most of the bear claims are sheep. There were some other losses. There were some turkeys and six cats. We don’t pay on those kinds of things but there were turkeys, goats and cats. Most of them are sheep and some cattle. Richard Hansen – Do you keep track of the difference between if it was a cougar or a bear? What kind of percentages were there? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, we track all of that. This last year we paid $148,995 for livestock depredation. $68,000 of that was for cougar and the rest was for bear depredation. Jason Binder – On the units that were increase in cougar permits how many of those did we increase deer permits?

of 13

Leslie McFarlane – I can’t answer that. I’m not over the deer permits. Can you answer that Riley? Riley Peck – Without being exact, almost every one. That is a tough question without having the data. I can talk to you after and get your number and follow up on that question. Leslie McFarlane – Just to clarify, the cougar plan does take into account deer population performance which is something the plan never took into account previously. We are trying to look at deer populations and how they are before we respond to predator management. That has been plugged into this plan. It doesn’t track how many hunters hunt deer or anything like that. It is actual post season objectives and population management objectives and survival of females. That’s what we’re looking at. Richard Hansen – I noticed there was an increase in the number of cougars taken last year? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, we did have a better winter than we have had in past years so I think harvest was a little bit higher than it has been previously because we did get a lot of snow on some of our southern region units. Richard Hansen – I was wondering if that was because there are more cougars? Leslie McFarlane – I would say it is more weather condition related than a direct link to an increase in cougar populations. Jason Vernon – Have you have a chance to look at those dates? Leslie McFarlane – Yes the dates are ok.

Troy Justensen/SWF – We support the Division’s recommendations with one change on the Manti, Southwest unit. Currently the Manti unit is under predator management for deer and we are not at objective and it doesn’t make sense to me that one side of the mountain we are issuing 16 tags and on the other side we are issuing 5. I know this is a hot topic with our membership and a lot would like to see it go to harvest objective. We recommend that we move those permits from 5 to 8. The only other addition we would have is SFW supports the BYU cougars going the big 12.


Sundays Hunt/Humane Society – On behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and our supports in Utah I respectfully request the Wildlife Board not adopt the proposed cougar recommendations. The current recommendations are not informed by the best available science and fail to encourage sustainable cougar management. Instead, they are based on inaccurate justifications and will harm the long term persistence of cougars in our state. While the HSUS does not support trophy hunting of cougars, we urge the Wildlife Board to only adopt sustainable quotas if cougar hunting is to continue in Utah. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ increased trophy hunting quotas are based on the false belief that killing more cougars will grow more mule deer and bighorn sheep herds as well as reduce nuisance and livestock depredation issues. The best available science shows that this is not true. In five recent studies that involved predator removals, those actions “generally had no effect” on mule deer herd numbers (Forrester and Wittmer 2013, p. 300). Access to adequate nutrition, studies show, is the key factor in mule deer dynamics. Increased trophy hunting on cougars will not boost mule deer populations. Bighorn sheep are also primarily limited by environmental factors, not cougar predation. Instead of killing cougars, we need to address the true culprits of mule deer decline: trophy hunters, habitat loss, lock of adequate nutrition and the spread of disease from livestock. Increased cougar hunting quotas have been shown to increase complaints and livestock depredations, not reduce them. Heavy hunting of cougars disrupts their social structure and causes an increase in young males immigrating to an area. These young males are typically inexperienced hunters and are more likely to go after an easy kill like unprotected livestock. Utah’s cougar populations are overhunted and are in need of reduced quotas. Yet, the current proposal recommends an increase in the number of cougar hunting permits as well as the creation of the state’s fourth unlimited quota unit. Based on the best available research by our country’s leading cougar experts,

of 13

including Utah-based researchers, these recommendations far exceed what would be considered a sustainable hunting quota for Utah’s cougar population and threaten the species’ persistence in our state. In conclusion, Utah statutes say agencies may not establish rules that are “not supported by substantial evidence.” The current cougar recommendations are not supported by substantial evidence; in fact, the scientific evidence argues against it. We urge the Wildlife Board to not adopt these recommendations and, instead, call for reduced hunting quotas that better reflect sustainable cougar management. Dan Cockayne /Utah Houndsmen Association – We were involved in the drafting of the cougar management plan and we take exception to that. We believe that the science that was available to us is sound we think it is a good plan. We support the Division’s recommendations on the cougar. The only comment we would have is we are working really hard to educate our people on how the system works and we realize that the recommendations for hunt strategies and the numbers come from the regions. This year we were very pressed for time and would like to find a way that we could have more time to give input into the process. Leslie McFarlane – One of the objectives in the plan is to look at age structure so we have to send all the teeth we collect to an outside laboratory. By contract they were supposed to have it by a certain date and they went over that date. So there was absolutely nothing we could do because we did not want to make recommendations without the science or the data. Dan Cockayne – We understand that. Leslie McFarlane – We sent a letter to the contractor but we are hands are kind of tied because we can say that we won’t use them but then what do we do. We will work it out. Jason Binder – I’ve been through this process a lot of years. Way back in the 90’s when we first started this harvest objective program and all the lions were killed up to 600 that first year there was kind of a step that everyone looked at. When the mule deer numbers started coming up these harvest objectives were supposed to start dropping off and they were supposed go back to limited entry. After this many years we are still looking at all these harvest objective units. We raised deer permits by around 4,000 and we have raised elk permits and now we are wanting to raise cougar permits and more harvest objective. The harvest objective and unlimited harvest should have been gone a long time ago and I would like you RAC members to look at that. Thank you. Leslie McFarlane – When the plan was redone this last time harvest objective was left in as a strategy that is not particularly for predator management. Some of our units are managed better using harvest objective and some of the regions liked using that as a strategy. So just because a unit is on harvest objective doesn’t necessarily mean that it is under predator management. It is the strategy that the region felt works best with the landowners in the area and that type of thing. Harvest objective as predator management is not exactly how it is. Unlimited harvest units are only on units where bighorn sheep are the only prey source for cougars in that unit. There are no alternative sources of prey such as mule deer which are the primary prey species for cougars. It’s very limited and in order to qualify it has to have only bighorn sheep. There are research studies out there that do show that cougars specifically can key in on bighorn sheep and significantly impact those populations and I believe Arizona was one of the state that had that research article and we can provide it if you would like to see it. Bighorn sheep are subject to predation when there are no other prey species. Chad Coburn/United Wildlife Cooperative – I like Dan sat through the revision of the cougar management plan. There was a lot of work done between the direct correlation of mule deer survival, not capacity. We are growing mule deer each year in Utah. If we only focus on capacity we will never understand the fact that each year we are growing mule deer like Jason said. We are selling more permits. Capacity means nothing. That is what we can hold total. I encourage the RAC to support the plan as it stands. I have watched year after year as the plans go to the Wildlife Board even after we did a revision and they had to sort through and make more

of 13

decisions above and beyond the plan. The plan works. I believe it is staying right inside the threshold of 40 percent females and staying within the adult survival. We have big problems with cougar management when we leave the plan. When we leave biological soundness and get emotional about saving mule deer. Let’s stay focused. We are growing mule deer. Cougar are being managed properly.

Richard Hansen – I would like to compliment Leslie too because a few years ago this thing was upside down and sideways. I could hardly understand what the plan was. It was very difficult to follow. I think they have done a good job of streamlining the process.

RAC Discussion

Larry Fitzgerald – Troy made a recommendation about the Nebo. I am not familiar with the Nebo; could you show that to us? Leslie McFarlane – It was actually the southwest Manti. That unit is only at 28 percent females. It was moved to predator management for deer. 31 percent of the harvest is for five or older so there is room for increase on that and we wouldn’t be opposed to that. The biologist there is Dennis and he recommended being conservative on it. Larry Fitzgerald – What would be your suggestion for an increase? Riley Peck – We support the biologist’s recommendation. As you can see according to the plan it has room to go in that direction but Dennis felt strongly that it stay at five for at least another year for the reason that the deer population is staying stable and we want to see how that unit could handle staying stable for another year. Leslie is accurate, it is on the borderline but we fully support Dennis and his recommendation of keeping it at five. Matt Clark – Didn’t Troy ask to split and take one side of the mountain and then the other? Leslie McFarlane – We don’t want to do that. If you wanted to increase that I would say just increase that unit and not split that. Ken Strong – So in your opinion if we went from five to eight would that be a problem? Leslie McFarlane – On other units when they have increased they have been doing about two or three. I think maybe two might be okay without going too crazy on it. Riley Peck – We would leave that up to the RAC and their recommendations. Richard Hansen – Is the overall number of permits close to the same as last year? Leslie McFarlane – The only difference this year are limited entry and split totals was decreased by five and our harvest objective quota totals were increased by 12. It is not increasing dramatically overall, just a few here and there. The harvest objective totals did increase by 12, if you increase this unit it would increase that from 241 to whatever you added to that unit. Ron Camp – Do you have numbers on the depredation and the number of cougars that were killed on that unit? I would rather have sportsmen harvest them than DWR personnel. Leslie McFarlane – I don’t have that number with me. This one wasn’t increased because of livestock depredation. This would be an increase because of deer. Karl Hirst – We all know lions bring a lot of passion from a lot of different areas. We have seen that tonight. I do believe that the science we are using is the best that we have got. Over the years we have watched it change taking a lot of the emotion and social out of it and bringing it back to the science and so I am comfortable with the science that we are using in making these recommendations and we are down to one unit. I would like to make a motion that we approve the plan as presented and if you want to increase that unit then you vote against this motion and we will have a second vote. VOTING

of 13

Motion was made by Karl Hirst to accept the Division’s recommendations as presented Seconded by George Garcia In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Karl Hirst Opposed: Larry Fitzgerald, Ken Strong

Motion passed 7 to 2 8) Proposed Fee Schedule

- Phillip Gray, Business Analyst (Action)

Ron Camp – Do we have any idea how many applicants applied for the multi-season permits? Questions from the RAC

Phillip Gray – I don’t have that number with me. Ron Camp – If you are looking for a revenue increase why not raise the application fee to $20 and make money on the application fee instead of raising this tag if you are only giving six out. Phillip Gray – The idea is not to increase revenue. We are not trying to make more money we are just trying to acknowledge that permit has a greater value than its single season counterpart which right now it doesn’t, it’s the same cost. It was just missed in the last go round. As far as the application fee, we have one application fee that is on the books so if we wanted to raise the fee we would raise the fee for all applications. We wouldn’t be able to do it for a single hunt. I don’t think the legislature would ever go for that. Ron Camp – I realize that. The point I was making on that is because there are a limited number of tags that go out it wouldn’t be the best way to increase revenue. Phillip Gray – Again we are not talking about increasing revenue, we are just talking about making it equitable. One thing that we are afraid of doing is once the general public realizes that the tag costs the same as the limited entry tag no one is going to apply for the limited entry tag they are going to apply for the multi season tag because why spend that much money on the rifle hunt when you can spend the same on the multi season hunt. It is going to balance itself back out. Ron Camp – Unless they realize that there are only six tags. And the multi season elk is just to have it on the books if those permits are created at some point in the future. Phillip Gray – Yes.

Troy Justensen/self – When did the Division develop a sense of humor? (the slide with Chris Farley on multi-season deer)


Phillip Gray – In my defense I did not create this proposal presentation. I was told late Friday I would be doing this. When Kenny created this he was told to throw some pictures in. He emailed it to the Directors office and Mike Canning said it was hilarious, don’t change it. I would like to take credit for it but I can’t. Luke Allen – Was there any reason why we didn’t look at a dedicated hunter program for elk? Phillip Gray – It was brought up by the committee that was established to create the statewide elk plan. The plan said that we would investigate the idea of creating a multi season or dedicated hunter elk program. Luke Allen – I think there would be people interested in a dedicated hunter program for elk. Phillip Gray – Without a doubt there would be. Our concern is we barley have enough good quality projects to meet the hour requirements. Ron Camp – I would say when the dedicated hunter program came out the elk populations weren’t what they are now.

None Comments from the Public

of 13

Richard Hansen – I think it is a good program to look at. Maybe you make the hours for an elk dedicated hunter less so they don’t have to do 32, maybe 16. There are a lot of things that can be done to make that more workable. 40 hours for dedicated hunters was way too much. We got it back to 32. We do some good things.

RAC Discussion

Ken Strong – I have a question on the youth turkey hunt at $25. We have less than five percent of our youth involved in hunting or fishing. I think that even $25 is too much for a youth especially if we trying to get them involved in hunting and fishing. We are losing our youth. We don’t have enough recruitment to sustain hunting and fishing in this state. I would like to see the proposal even come down from $25 to $20, I would actually like to see it go to $15 for the youth turkey hunt. VOTING Motion was made by Kent Strong to change the fee proposal for youth turkey permit from $25.00 to $15.00 Seconded by Danny Potts Matt Clark – That is just for the tag, right? Phillip Gray – Everyone would still have to have a small game or combination license. Matt Clark – What is the cost of a small game license for 17 and under. Phillip Gray – Youth for 13 or under is $11. Matt Clark – I guess when that comes up that would be my recommendation. Where can we cut hunting or fishing licenses for youth? Maybe they already are quite low. Phillip Gray – Just a couple years ago when we implemented the multi year license we also changed a whole bunch of fees around. For under 13 for hunting license is $11 and for ages 14 to 17 a hunting license is $16 and a combination is $20. It is still pretty reasonable considering the adult license is $38. Ron Camp – Is the main goal of lowering the fee to get more youth involved in that? Phillip Gray – Yes. Ron Camp – The point I would make is if we really want to get them involved you could leave that fee at $25 but for a 12 or 13 year old if their dad draws out they get a tag for free and then you’ve got them hooked then. At that point it is never a problem to come up with the money after they have been on a hunt. If our total goal is recruitment, I don’t know how many people would take advantage of that in the first place but in reality you are not talking about a lot of money for that 12 or 13 year old kid to go out and hunt with an adult. Kind of like a mentoring program. Phillip Gray – If I can make one point especially about lowering it that drastically. I would be nervous about lowering it that far. We didn’t look at the output into the future of what would happen if we did decrease it that much so I would be leery of pulling the trigger that hard. This is not the only obstacle of recruiting youth into turkey hunting. This is just one part of our plan to do this. It also includes a lot of outreach stuff and other recruitment ideas. Don’t think that the fee is the only thing standing in the way of getting youth participating in turkey hunting. There are other obstacles that we are planning to address with that. This is just one part and it has to go through the legislature. In Favor: Danny Potts, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong Opposed: Christine Schmitz, Ron Camp, Karl Hirst

Motion passed 6 to 3

of 13

Christine Schmitz – On your education fees, have you done a feasibility study to know if people will attend your event and still pay those fees? Phillip Gray – Yes, I can’t tell you the exact details of it but I can get you that information. Christine Schmitz – I am just curious because in my other life I do this and I know what the complaint level is. Phillip Gray – We anticipate there will be some resistance but again these are programs that are needing money. Danny Potts – How do you come up with the range of fees? Phillip Gray – This is kind of a new concept to the way we do business but the plan is once we have the range we will assess a seasonal fee. We won’t be changing it from weekend to weekend. It will be set and will be posted well in advance and will be comparable to other market fees. Luke Allen – With the youth turkey hunt, last year my brother had just completed all the requirements to hunt in the state. My dad didn’t even know that the youth turkey hunt existed until I found it. One thing I would stress is to get more information out to seasoned hunters so they are able to get their kids or grandkids involved in those programs in advance. You would possibly have more involvement with the youth. From what I see they are into tech toys all the time but if they are informed about this being available to them they will be more interested. Motion was made by Danny Potts to accept the remainder of the recommendations as presented by the Division Seconded by Ron Camp In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong, Karl Hirst Opposed: none

Motion passed unanimously

9) Wallsburg WMA Management Plan- Mark Farmer, Habitat Program Manager

(Action)

Richard Hansen – I was reading in the packet about some land that you were trying to acquire. Is that included in this?

Questions from the RAC

Mark Farmer – We got some land from SITLA recently (1,092 acres). We did a trade. We would still like to get section 16 that SITLA isn’t willing to give up yet so that is still on our list. It is somewhat developable so that is probably why they don’t want to give it up. The good thing is now we don’t have that SITLA ground in the middle of the property and we have a more contiguous piece. Danny Potts – I don’t see any fishing opportunities on the property down on the south side. Is there any fishing opportunities? Mark Farmer – There isn’t any water there nor access there. Ron Camp – You haven’t had much luck from the bureau selling that piece of property by the lake to you? Mark Farmer – I don’t think they are willing to give it to us. Matt Clark – Were you involved with UDOT expansion of that road? Mark Farmer – We have been talking to UDOT for years. We worked a wildlife crossing into the project. They have been good to work with us. We have been working with them to put in place escape ramps to get deer off the highway if they get on the highway. Matt Clark – So none of that area with all the zip lines is part of this?

of 13

Mark Farmer – No. We did comment on that and that is really the only thing we could do is comment on those things if they are going to have any wildlife impacts. The only thing we were really worried about is winter use of the zip line which might disturb deer. Matt Clark – A lot of those deer migrate over to what looks like an island. I just noticed in construction of those zip lines they have created roads and other things. I just wanted to know if you had any input on that. Mark Farmer - Yes, we did comment on that. Richard Hansen – It is good to hear that UDOT is working with you on that. I know several years ago Arizona had a lawsuit filed against them because of a death of someone who hit wildlife on the road. I’m sure UDOT is aware of that.

Troy Justensen/SFW – You really hit something we have been thinking about these past several years. Every year conservation groups RMEF and others generate millions of dollars which we spend on federal lands to do habitat projects. We have created a significant amount of forage that is not being beneficial to users and us as far as raising wildlife. These WMAs are actually a diamond in the rough. I compliment the Division. I would encourage you to look further into these WMAs and I think we as conservation groups need to shift our funding into these WMAs. We don’t have the loop holes and the red tape to go through to do these projects and are more beneficial to livestock users and to hunters. I would encourage you to inventory our WMAs and see what needs to be done and come forward to these conservation groups and see what needs to be done to shift our funding from federal ground to grounds that are state owned that we can actually do something and make a difference. I applaud you. Thank you.


Mark Farmer – I am in favor of that. Sometimes it is hard to get funding for projects.

None Comments from the Public

None RAC Discussion

VOTING Motion was made by Karl Hirst to accept the Wallsburg Management Plan as presented Seconded by Ken Strong

In Favor: Danny Potts, Christine Schmitz, George Garcia, Larry Fitzgerald, Ron Camp, Michael Gates, Matt Clark, Ken Strong, Karl Hirst

Opposed: none Motion passed unanimously

10) Habitat Restoration Work Update

(Information)

11) - Richard Hansen, RAC Chair

Other Business

Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Eighteen public were in attendance Next board meeting September 1, 2016 at the DNR boardroom, Salt Lake Next RAC meeting September 6, 2016 at Springville City Civic Center

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 1/11

Northern Regional Advisory Council July 27, 2016

Brigham City Senior Center Brigham City, Utah

Draft Meeting Minutes Meeting Begins: 6:01 p.m.

John Blazzard- Agric Jodie Anderson Byron Bateman RAC Present DWR Present Wildlife Board

John Cavitt- Chair Randy Wood Chad Jensen- Elected Darren Debloois Matt Klar- At Large Phil Gray Mike Laughter- Sportsman Jordan Hastings Russ Lawrence- At Large Matt Burgess Kevin McLeod- At Large Brandon Baron Justin Oliver- At Large Jason Jones Kristin Purdy- Noncon. Leslie McFarlane Bryce Thurgood- At Large Pam Kramer Craig VanTassell- Sportsman Marni Lee John Wall- At Large Rich Hansen

Joel Ferry- Agric RAC Excused

Bruce Sillitoe- BLM

RAC Unexcused

Approval of Agenda Agenda:

Approval of April 6, 2016 Meeting Minutes Wildlife Board Update Regional Update R657-11 - Furbearer Rule Amendments Bobcat Management Plan Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 Proposed Fee Schedule NRO WMA Habitat Management Plans

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 2/11

-John Cavitt, Chair Item 1. Approval of Agenda

If there is no objection, the agenda for tonight’s meeting will be approved as presented. There being no objection, the agenda for tonight’s meeting has been approved.

-John Cavitt, Chair Item 2. Approval of April 6, 2016 Minutes

Everyone should have received a copy of the minutes. Are there any question on the minutes? If there is no objection, the minutes will be approved as circulated. Seeing none, the minutes are approved as circulated.

-Bryce Thurgood, Vice Chair Item 3. Wildlife Board Update

Motion on bucks, bulls and OIAL recommendations-Had a motion to split the difference between the divisions numbers and the Southeast regional advisory councils recommendations. Increase the number of permits on the Manti to 275 instead of 550. Motion passed 4-2. Accepted the regional advisory councils proposed permit split on the Pine Valley and Zions. It was 54% legal weapon, 23 archery, 23 muzzleloader. It failed, 2 in favor and 4 opposed. They had a technical issue and amended the previous approved permit on the Pine Valley and Zion. Instead of 54, 23,23, it had to be 56,22,22 just for technical issues. A motion was made to increase the youth rifle tags by 300 tags from 500 to 800 like our RAC recommended and it failed, 2 in favor and 4 against. Then, it passed to leave it as it was. Motion to stay with the 2015 elk numbers on the Wasatch and leave the permit totals at 760 instead of the increase. That motion passed unanimously. Motion to accept the remainder of the Divisions recommendations as presented which passed unanimously. Antlerless recommendations passed unanimously. 2016 CWMU antlerless permit recommendations passed unanimously as presented. The 2016 CWMU variance request presented passed 4 to 1 with 1 person being absent. They accepted the hunter rule as presented.

- Justin Dolling, Regional Supervisor Item 4. Regional Update

Aquatics Clint Brunson- Aquatic habitat restoration biologist- River restoration work. Develop an internal brood stock for Arctic grayling at Smith and Morehouse. Working with Pacific Corp. to accommodate fish passage, primarily upstream. High elevation lakes fishing really well. Bear River is fishing well for catfish. Wildlife Section Biologist conducting rabbit route counts. Depredation issues due to dry conditions. Working with landowners in Cache Valley and Bear Lake. Collar female bear looking at reproduction and recruitment. Successful last Friday.

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 3/11

Elk unit management plans. Project approved to place GPS collars on 120 elk at Hardware Ranch to look at where they are coming from and going to. Collaring also at Deseret, Cache Valley, Idaho and Wyoming. 2-3 year monitoring effort. Utah Hunt Planner Link should be up and running shortly. Looks at ownership, unit boundaries, highlights of the unit, elevation of animals and hunting tips. Hope this will provide better information to the public. Outreach Section National YHEC held in Pennsylvania. State Fair. Plans to publish a new Community Fishing Brochure. Habitat Artificial rock reef project at Willard Bay State Park. Great Salt Lake Project Randy Berger retired in mid July. WMA's treating Phragmites. Banded 500 pelican’s on Gunnison Island. Law Enforcement Josie Byers new Box Elder Conservation Officer

- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator Item 5. R657-11 - Furbearer Rule Amendments

See RAC Packet Public Comment Chris Carling- Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife- Support these rule amendments as presented. Stan Bassett- Utah Trappers Association- Support the recommendations presented. Motion Motion- Mike Laughter- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept R657-11 Furbearer Rule Amendments as presented. Second- Chad Jensen Motion Passes- Unanimous

- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator Item 6. Bobcat Management Plan

See RAC Packet Public Questions Robert Byrnes- Did you say what the proposed terms is? Is it 10 years again? Leslie McFarlane- We are not going to put an expiration date on this plan and just have a review every 10 years.

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 4/11

Robert Byrnes- Sections attributed to certain people? Leslie McFarlane- Having to reform and entire committee, I wanted to keep the purpose and structure of the plan the way it was. The plan worked well for bobcats. There were a few things that needed to be updated. So, we did not form a new committee and reform the whole thing. Robert Byrnes- Are some of those sections to personal? Leslie McFarlane- Some of them were not really division statements but that persons statements. I didn't want to re-write those sections. Robert Byrnes- Where you edited those sections, do those people agree with your edit? Leslie McFarlane- The one section was written by our biometrician and she edited her own section. The others I just took things out like a bobcat eating a pet Chihuahua. Robert Byrnes- You don't need to replace Kevin with you? Leslie McFarlane- No, because I did not write those sections. Kevin wrote those. My name is on the front of the plan. Public Comment Robert Byrnes- I think the plan has worked really good, especially with the change made shortly after we started it. I recommend to the council that you recommend the Wildlife Board approve it. It has a strange layout but you are working with what you have. Maybe in the future, you could just change it to a division document and present it that way. Chris Carling- Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife- Support this plan and recognize the Utah Trappers Association and Utah Houndsman for work and volunteers put toward this. Stan Bassett- Utah Trappers Association- Supports the new recommendations. RAC Comment John Wall- Good to see a deal go through where there is not a lot of negatives so that must mean it is working for everyone. Motion Motion-John Wall- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Bobcat Management Plan as presented. Second- Craig VanTassell Motion Passes- Unanimous Item 7. Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 - Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator

See RAC Packet RAC Question John Blazzard- How do you determine survival rate? Leslie McFarlane- Based on the ages we get from our tooth and from our survey data. It is based on model data. Justin Dolling- It is essentially creating a life table to look at survival. John Blazzard- It is scientific? Justin Dolling- Based on the age at the harvest, you can generate a life table and give survival estimate. Leslie McFarlane- It is kind of the same way we do with bears but different. We build the population back and that is how it tells you. John Blazzard- It is kind of like an educated guess?

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 5/11

Leslie McFarlane- No, it is based on what we collect. It is based on what hunters provide us. With all of our predators, there is no other way to get a population. We cannot follow them like deer or elk. We have to use the metrics we get from hunter harvest to estimate populations and survival. John Wall- What age is bobcats, male and female, considered adult? Is it due to when they can breed? Leslie McFarlane- It is based on reproductive status and it is 2 years old. Craig VanTassell- Do you have management plans in place for the other species? Leslie McFarlane- No. We monitored harvest through survey. Kevin McLeod- There is no cap on permits but it is limited to only 6 permits per person? Leslie McFarlane- Right, if there were a cap, then we would say 80% of the tags sold the previous year. We sold 9,000 last year so 80% of that would be available. You can get up to 6 tags but once it hits that 80% of the 9,000, we would not sell any more. Kevin McLeod- Are they bought in lots of 6? Leslie McFarlane- You can buy anywhere from one to six unless you went to a certain Wal-Mart and they made you buy six. Russ Lawrence- Do we know how many kit fox taken every year? Leslie McFarlane- I can get you that information. I did not bring any of that harvest stuff with me. Russ Lawrence- Do these individuals report non-target wildlife as well. Leslie McFarlane- Yes, on the survey they do. Public Comment Chris Carling- Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife- Supports the DWR's recommendation. Stan Bassett- Utah Trappers Association- Support the recommendations as presented. Motion Motion- Justin Oliver- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 as presented. Second- John Blazzard Motion Passes- Unanimous

- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator Item 8. Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017

See RAC Packet Public Comment Ben Bloomquist- Primarily hunt East Canyon, Morgan, South Rich units. Feel that increasing that unit by 2 tags is really going to affect population in that area. Ask that you reconsider leaving the tag numbers alone. Robert Byrnes- The boundary for the San Juan changes was not available online. I am guessing it is close to what the San Juan sheep unit is but a little bit different? Leslie McFarlane- Yes, I am not familiar with both the sheep unit and it to know if they are exactly the same. The reason it was not in this is because the region sent it last minute. Robert Byrnes- Will you put that online? Leslie McFarlane- Yes, I will ask them to update it. Robert Byrnes- Recommend you approve what the Division has presented. I think it is following the plan and we are doing a pretty good job except for depredation. Higher tags would hopefully address that.

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 6/11

Chris Carling- Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife- Supports the cougar recommendations and rule amendments as presented by the Division with one exception. On the southwest Manti unit, we are asking that maybe you consider increasing the recommendation on permit numbers from 5 to 8 and go to a split season on the southwest unit. Under objective for deer which qualifies it for predator management. 8 would be a modest increase from the 5 which is recommended. We feel this would help the struggling deer populations. Randy Hatch- Utah Houndsmen Association- Support current proposals. RAC Questions Craig VanTassell- Would you comment on the two proposals. One on the East Canyon and also on the Manti. Leslie McFarlane- I will have the region come up and talk about East Canyon since it is their recommendation. Randy Wood- We are following the plan. We want to manage one of the targets at less than 40% females in the harvest, 3 year average is at 23 and greater than 5 years old at 15-20% and we are at 33%. Justin Oliver- Total number of lions in comparison to females. Any mechanism in place for that? Randy Wood- I would assume most harvesters probably tend to go towards the larger. Leslie McFarlane- The lands are locked up so they are controlling the harvest and there is not a lot we can do about that. It does allow us to increase and the numbers indicate the population is doing ok to provide more opportunity. It is within the plan to do that. Justin Oliver- They have to kill more females. Leslie McFarlane- That is part of the mechanism to keep the population from growing too much is to harvest females. The southwest Manti is a central region unit. It had 5 permits. The percent female is at 28% and the percentage 5 years and older is at 31. There is not a lot of female harvest. The animals are older. The plan indicates we can increase and the biologist chose to be conservative and did not recommend any increase. John Cavitt- That particular unit has an older population of lions? What is the implication for removing older males? Leslie McFarlane- When you start removing older males, you can influence some of the other things in the unit. You can allow younger males to take up smaller territories and encourage more cougars in an area. The whole Manti is under objective and this year when we looked at population growth, the models for deer indicated it was stable and not increasing. The purpose behind it would be to try and help as one of the factors to increase lion tags. John Cavitt- So potentially, increasing the number of tags in that unit could result in taking more older males that have larger territories and are keeping younger males out. In other words, it could actually increase depredation. Leslie McFarlane- Usually, they take the older males first and work on younger males. Then, they go to females. That is why we monitor the female harvest. It kind of tells you how many males are available when they start going for females. John Blazzard- It seems to me that if we that because the deer population is low it is the lions problem. Seems like there could be habitat issues or other things. Leslie McFarlane- That is not what it says in the cougar management plan. John Blazzard- That is the request. Leslie McFarlane- That is not what the plan says. The plan says that, as one piece of the pie, we can implement predator management to try and help improve mule deer populations. We recognize that predator control by itself is not going to increase deer populations. RAC Comment

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 7/11

Justin Oliver- In the future, as they discuss plans, is it a possibility to include landowners in particular areas? Has that already taken place? Leslie McFarlane- The regions are suppose to meet with their landowners to discuss them before they are turned in. Justin Oliver- You mentioned road mortality with lions. I'm curios what kind of damage. Leslie McFarlane- It totaled it. Justin Oliver- Was it male or female. Leslie McFarlane- 6 year old male. Mike Laughter- SFW wants to increase, others want to decrease. We have accepted this plan when it was presented in its entirety. If it falls within the guidelines of the plan, I think we need to stick with the plan. Motion Motion- John Blazzard- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 as presented. Second- John Wall Motion Passes- Unanimous

- Phil Gray, Business Analyst Item 9. Proposed Fee Schedule

See RAC Packet RAC Questions Kevin McLeod- When you looked at the youth turkey, you say that you figured it will cost the division about 20,000. Did you figure in what you feel the increase in numbers would be? Or did you just take the number of tags sold last year? Phil Gray- Number of tags over several years and the trend it is following. Kevin McLeod- If you increase the number of tags. Phil Gray- That is worse case scenario. This is just one prong of what we are planning to do with youth turkey. We do not feel this is the only barrier. There will be some outreach programs going on. Our numbers are through the roof. But we are not getting the youth we were hoping to get. We are going to refocus those efforts and get more youth. We are hoping this will help. Justin Oliver- I can't see that lowering it by 10 dollars is worth losing $20,000. I feel like 35 was a pretty reasonable price for a turkey tag. I don't think you are going to get any more tags sold. Have you had comments about people saying they are too much? Phil Gray- Just the opposite actually. The biggest complaint is that it is too much for youth. Justin Oliver- Really? Phil Gray- The average age for youth turkey hunters is 16-17 years old. Kristin Purdy- Do we have any history of previous fee reductions, particularly for youth and if they inspired more youth to get out and hunt? Phil Gray- Yes, just a few years ago we did a huge fee change for combination and small game hunting licenses and well as fishing licenses. We created several new age brackets for youth. It use to be anyone under 14 had a fee. Anyone over 14, was an adult. We changed that and set it to up to 14 for a hunting license is $11. 14-17 years for combination is $20 and $38 for anyone over that. We saw a huge influx of youth purchasing the general hunting license. Matt Klar- Cow elk mitigation tags and your proposal to drop the fee from $50. Has that been a complaint by the landowners? Phil Gray- I can't say that it has been specifically by the landowners but it has been mentioned. Qualifying areas are under objective and experiencing depredation problems.

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 8/11

Matt Klar- Most of these people that sell vouchers will give you the voucher but charge a trespass fee. Phil Gray- That is actually something that has been going on a long time. We can't control what landowners do for access to their property. If they want problem elk taken care of, they need to provide access. Justin Oliver- With the new tags implemented this coming year, what are the landowner vouchers. Phil Gray- Now, they are $50 and will remain until 2017. Justin Oliver- Those are the tags we just recently approved as far as to allow more increased hunting on private vs. public? Phil Gray- Are you talking about the private lands only antlerless tags? Justin Oliver- Yes. Phil Gray- They are out there and have been on sell for about a week and a half now. Justin Oliver- What is the price on those? Phil Gray- $50 for resident. I would have to look up non-resident. RAC Comment Kevin McLeod- Would like consideration for youth to be able to buy and over the counter deer permit. Similar to what you are doing with turkey. Phil Gray- There is a quota for each of the 30 units. Archery buck/deer tags available only to youth which never come close to selling out. Kevin McLeod- I think that youth archery and youth rifle are vastly different. Kristin Purdy- I believe that the cost of a youth turkey tag of $35 dollars is a drop in the bucket. While I am all for reducing fees to get people out in the field, I think that those 16-17 year olds in the field, probably have a cell phone with them that cost a whole lot more than a $35 turkey tag and they didn't buy it. I would like to suggest to the Outreach folks that if they want to get more people in the field, they should plant a Pokémon. Phil Gray- Central region RAC had the same suggestion. Kristin Purdy- Outreach needs to think this over. Wondering if dropping the fee will really have the effect we want to have. Chad Jensen- Agree with Kevin on deer. Landowner tags getting for free and charging rates for trespass fee. Some places, it is the opposite. John Blazzard- It is a problem with depredation. My biggest issue is that I have to be careful who I give them to. I never give all the tags out because no one wants them. I don't know if the price is an issue as much as all of the other mitigating circumstances that go with those. Motion Motion- Justin Oliver- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Proposed Fee Schedule with the exception of youth turkey tags and mitigation cow elk tags. Recommend keeping youth turkey tags and mitigation cow elk tag fees the same. Second- Kristin Purdy Motion Passes- Unanimous 7:45 p.m. RAC Chair John Cavitt left to catch a flight.

- Pam Kramer, Habitat Biologist Item 10-NRO WMA Habitat Management Plans

East Canyon WMA See RAC Packet

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 9/11

RAC Questions Justin Oliver- Was there an effort put forth to try and better the winter range. Pam Kramer- Grasses are hard to get rid of depending on the type of grass is there. Grasses are more annual and we like perennial grasses. Planning efforts done. Look at using livestock like sheep to get seed out there. You cannot get equipment into there. It makes it difficult there to be able to do something. We rely on our biologist and take recommendations from our wildlife section to develop projects. Justin Oliver- Money to fund those projects? Pam Kramer- Through the division's habitat council program and through the watershed restoration initiative. We would develop a proposal and put it through them and get comments what we would like to do and what we think would work and they would give us money. There are other partners through the Forest Service, BLM and others. Justin Oliver- Any effort to get money from other conservation groups? Who decides where the money goes? Effort to try and put more money on public open grounds? Pam Kramer- They would prefer to put money on public lands for sportsman to access. Justin Oliver- When I said public, I guess I mean open areas like a WMA compared to limited entry hunting area. Pam Kramer- There is the two different organizations. Division habitat council that has 4 division people on it. Then you have 4 outside entities. They will review all the proposals and make recommendations as to what they think should be funded. Through the watershed restoration initiative, they have a committee that selects which projects to fund. It is a competitive process. Russ use to sit on that so he could answer that more specifically. Do you want to add anything? Russ Lawrence- Watershed restoration initiative is a very complex funding picture. There are a lot of different funding sources that go into that. A lot of the money that comes into there is federal money. Primarily from the BLM. A lot of that goes out on BLM lands. The state has always had trouble trying to get the money because the council does not have a lot to play with. The legislature puts money into the WRI but it is going out to do priority sage grouse habitat right now. Each year, there is something driving it. For this WMA, Pam is right. It is tough because the slopes are steep and it is hard to get equipment out on it. Pam Kramer- If you have some specific thoughts and to what you would like to see done, we would love to sit down and visit with you. We are always open to good ideas. Justin Oliver- We'll talk after. John Blazzard- Grazing is a tool that is used to control the grasses on these WMA's in order to make the grouse come. Is this bid on every year or is it a multiple year? If someone puts in a bid to graze that, are they allowed multiple years or one year or how does that work? Pam Kramer- The grazing program in general or this specific? John Blazzard- This specific. Pam Kramer- On this specific property, we have an agreement with adjacent landowner because it is not fenced. The way the process works is by grazing on us, they give the public a benefit. They might put in fences or develop water troughs. They might spray weeds or different things they can do. Or, they pay us money. So, either in kind payment or monetary payment on that. For this one in particular, we just do it with them right now because we don't have fences along the northern part of the property. Other properties, the division has a grazing bid process. I can get you that if you want to take a look at that. John Blazzard- I just wondered how this one worked. Pam Kramer- It is up to 1-3 years of being able to graze it. There is a process to go through to bid it. John Blazzard- I know we are way over objective in elk in this unit. Could that be a reason for the downturn in the transect conditions. Pam Kramer- I don't think so because it has been going on for a while but I would defer to Randy who is our wildlife program manager.

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 10/11

Randy Wood- Probably not. They winter in there and you are pretty close to that property. Depending on the snow depth and how far down and where they hang. I would say it is not directly related. We are trying to bring that down. John Blazzard- I know drought conditions over the last several years have had a big impact on studies. Randy Wood- The trend crews are in our region this year. We should know this spring how everything looks. John Blazzard- Better hurry before it burns. Kevin McLeod- What is the water to acquisition problem? Pam Kramer- Morgan county is a closed basin so it is not open for new appropriations of water. We would have to find someone who is selling water and then buy it and move it to the property. So, we are kind of stuck. Kevin McLeod- You can't even make it work. Pam Kramer- Nope. It is the State of Utah water right laws. Craig VanTassell- Are there any sage grouse on that property? Pam Kramer- No. The sage grouse are to the east closer to East Canyon Reservoir but we are off the edge of it. Mike Laughter- Is there a plan in place if these watersheds became available. Is there anything to do immediately to purchase them? Pam Kramer- We have a water rights specialist who is aware of that. He always looks for that. Mike Laughter- Wanted to make sure something was in place so we could act on that if they became available. Motion Motion- John Blazzard Recommend the Wildlife Board approve East Canyon WMA Habitat Management Plan as presented. Second- Kevin McLeod Motion Passes- Unanimous East Fork of the Little Bear River See RAC Packet RAC Questions Kristin Purdy- Do they want to drive through the property or move livestock? Pam Kramer- They want to drive through the property every year to get to their own property. Bring their campers and trailers and family members and ride 4-wheelers. We would prefer not to have that happen. No other motorized vehicles can drive on that. It destroys the ambiance if you are fishing. We are working through another landowner for different access to keep our property for the benefit of the public. Motion Motion-Chad Jensen- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept East Fork of the Little Bear River WMA Management Plan as presented. Second- Russ Lawrence Motion Passes- Unanimous Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Area See RAC Packet

NRAC 07-27-16: Page 11/11

Pam Kramer- There is a crew starting next week? Jason Jones- Week after next. RAC Questions Craig VanTassell- I think wildlife management areas are great and the state needs to be involved. How involved is the division in working with conservation groups for easements and acquiring property? Pam Kramer- We are always looking for opportunities to protect additional lands for our wildlife. We usually look at lands that are adjacent to our existing lands or protecting lands. If you build on what you have, you increase the value for wildlife. The Utah State Legislature does not want us to own more property. They want more private land ownership. In the south, there are a lot of public lands but in the north it is mostly private. Public access to lands and provide additional sportsman opportunities. Habitat improvements on private lands to support wildlife. Russ Lawrence- Appreciate work on this. A lot of effort, time and care put into these management plans. Pam Kramer- Thanks. Russ Lawrence- It can be hard to get all the biologists together and get their input. Motion Motion- Justin Oliver- Recommend the Wildlife Board accept Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Area Habitat Management Plan as presented. Second- Craig Van Tassell Motion Passes-Unanimous Motion to adjourn Meeting Ends- 8:29 p.m.

1

NORTHEASTERN RAC MEETING SUMMARY OF MOTIONS Utah Wildlife Resources Office, 318 N Vernal Avenue, Vernal

August 4, 2016

NER RAC MEMBERS PRESENT: Bret Preveldel, Public At-Large Amy Vande Voort, NER Wildlife Biologist

UDWR PERSONNEL PRESENT:

Daniel Davis, Sportsmen Derrick Ewell, NER Wildlife Biologist Dan Abeyta, Forest Service Clint Sampson, NER Wildlife Biologist David Gordon, BLM Randall Thacker, NER Wildlife Biologist Mitch Hacking, Agriculture Dax Mangus, NER Wildlife Manager Andrea Merell, Non-consumptive Kyle Kettle, NER Predator Specialist Tim Ignacio, Ute Tribe Rori Shafer, NER Office Manager Randy Dearth, NER RAC Chair Teri Weimer, Office Specialist Boyde Blackwell, NER Reg. Supervisor Kody Jones, NER Law Enforcement Leslie McFarlane, SLO Mammals Coordinator NER RAC MEMBER EXCUSED:Jerry Jorgensen, Elected Official

Kenny Johnson, Administrative Section Chief

Melissa Wardle, Non-consumptive Joe Batty, Agriculture Joe Arnold, Public At-Large

Kirk Woodward WILDLIFE BOARD MEMBERS:

1. WELCOME, RAC INTRODUCTION - Randy Dearth 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES – Randy Dearth MOTION to approve agenda Dan Abeyta Andrea Merrell, second Passed Unanimously MOTION to approve minutes Dan Abeyta Andrea Merrell, second Passed Unanimously 3. WILDLIFE BOARD MEETING UPDATE – Randy Dearth All the Antlerless proposals were approved and the Board wanted to thank the NER for pointing out season dates to be considered on Antlerless. CWMU variance request accepted. Antelope Island cooperative hunt passed. Mexican wolves will be kept in their historical range. Buck, Bulls and Once in a lifetime changes passed. The 300 extra youth permits failed. Wasatch Motion was a tie. 4. REGIONAL UPDATE – Boyde Blackwell

2

Introduction of new NER Outreach Manager, Tonya Kieffer. In regards to Invasive Species we have had no issues. Red Fleet update is that all the species we have put in are thriving and doing their job. Our next big project will be Pelican Lake. Wildlife will be doing an open house August 15, 2016 here at NERO. This will be an opportunity for public to be informed on the deer population and management on our units in our Region. The Biologist will also be open to comments and suggestions. Introduction of Teri Weimer our new Office Specialist and Kody Jones new LE in our Region. 5. FURBEARER RULE AMMENDMENTS – Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator See handout Questions from the RAC: Dan Abeyta: Are traps near carcasses common? Leslie McFarlane: Technically it is illegal if it’s out there. Brett Prevedale: How is the Martin in the Uintahs? Randall Thacker: Doing very well and the population are expanding. Dan Abeyta: Is the trend for trapping down or stable? Leslie McFarlane: According to the Expo there was a lot of interest but hard to find educators. Randall Thacker: The cycle also follows fur prices. Questions from the Public: None Comments from the RAC: None Comments from the Public: None MOTION by Brett Prevedale to accept the Divisions proposal as presented David Gordon: Second Passed Unanimously 6. BOBCAT MANAGEMENT PLAN – Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator See handout Questions from the RAC:

3

Brett Prevedale: Do you treat the whole state as one unit? Leslie McFarlane: Yes. Mitch Hacking: What makes the hide prices higher? Leslie Mcfarlane: The demand on fur. Questions from the Public: J C Brewer: Is there a way to require trappers to mark on a fence post that there is a trap present Leslie McFarlane: Anti Trapping groups would push harder and we don’t want to highlight that. J C Brewer: So anti groups would get worse? Kody Jones: Yes and traps would start to get stolen. Comments from the RAC: None Comments from the Public: None MOTION by Dan Abeyta to accept the Divisions proposal as presented Mitch Hacking: Second Passed unanimously 7. FURBEARER AND BOBCAT HARVEST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2016-2017 Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator See handout Questions from the RAC: Mitch Hacking: Badgers we like, they help with prairie dogs is there a closure? Leslie McFarlane: Get with the Biologist about closures. They are not tracked close enough to put on a restriction. Randall Thacker: They rotate such a big area it would be hard to close. Questions from the Public: None MOTION by David Gordon to accept the Divisions proposal as presented

4

Andrea Merell: Second Passed unanimously 8. COUGAR RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULE AMENDMENTS FOR 2016-2017 Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator See handout Questions from the RAC: Mitch Hacking: What cause the incidents in Wasatch? Leslie McFarlane: Increase in population. Daniel Davis: Is it possible that female harvest is higher and they young are looking for more prey? Leslie McFarlane: We are not seeing that as a problem. Daniel Davis: Why is there a 5 yr old harvest in Southern Region? Leslie McFarlane: More snow in that Region and that is why the age is higher. Questions from the public: None Comments from the RAC: None Comments from the Public: J C Brewer: The Book Cliffs unit, I have no recommend change. Because of the control I am seeing better deer herds. I run a trial camera and I am seeing less cougars, the plan is working. Please continue for another year. MOTION by Mitch Hacking to accept the Divisions proposal as presented David Gordon: Second Passed unanimously 9. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDUAL – Kenny Johnson, Administrative Section Chief See handout Questions from the RAC: Mitch Hacking: Is there a fee for Shed hunting and could you do that?

5

Kenny Johnson: Right now there is an online course to gather and no fee associated, that is a fair question. Dan Abeyta: Do various state with non residents stay around the same fees? Kenny Johnson: We have more residents that hunt so we need to accommodate them. Brett Prevedale: Thirty five dollars seems reasonable why lower the youth fee. Kenny Johnson: Because more families buy permits and that give them a break. Tim Ignacio: Back to shed hunting, the tribe went back to having season dates why not you? Kenny Johnson: The online course makes it more ethical. Daniel Davis: During Big Game is a more appropriate time to talk about that. Kirk Woodward: We could put that on an action log and ask for a fee schedule Boyde Blackwell: We tried a couple years ago and not many changes. Questions from the Public: None Comments from the RAC: None Comments from the Public: None MOTION by David Gordon to accept the Divisions proposal as presented Dan Abeyta: Second Passed unanimously Motion to adjourn by David Gordon Daniel Davis: Second Meeting adjourned at 8:10 pm

Southeast Region Advisory Council John Wesley Powell Museum

1765 E. Main Green River, Utah

August 03, 2016

Motion Summary

MOTION: To accept today’s agenda and the amended minutes of the meeting.

Approval of today's Agenda and Minutes for the last meeting

Passed unanimously (8/0)

MOTION: To accept R657-11 Furbearer Rule Amendments as presented.

R657-11- Furbearer Rule Amendments (Action)


MOTION: To accept the Bobcat Management Plan as presented. Bobcat Management Plan (Action)


MOTION : To accept the Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 as presented.

Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017


MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 as presented, with the exception that on the southwest Manti the number of permits increase from five to eight and make it a split unit.

Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017


MOTION: To accept the Proposed Fee Schedule as presented Proposed Fee Schedule


MOTION: To accept the Lower San Rafael WMA Habitat Management Plan as presented.

Lower San Rafael HMP Management Plan


Southeast Region Advisory Council John Wesley Powell Museum

1765 E. Main Green River, Utah

August 03, 2016 6:30 p.m.

Members Present Members Absent Kevin Albrecht, Chairman, USFS

Sue Bellagamba, non-consumptive

Keith Brady, Elected Official Blair Eastman, Agriculture Trisha Hedin, Sportsperson Todd Huntington, At Large Karl Ivory, BLM representative Kent Johnson, At Large Derris Jones, Sportsmen Darrel Mecham, Sportsmen Christine Micoz, At Large Charlie Tracy, Agriculture

Gerrish Willis, non- consumptive

Chris Wood, Regional Supervisor

Others Present

Mike King

1) -Kevin Albrecht, Chairman

Welcome, RAC introductions and RAC Procedure

We would like to welcome everybody out tonight to the Southeastern Region July/ August RAC meeting. I would like to thank everybody for coming out. We will jump right into it. 2) Approval of this evening's agenda and the minutes -Kevin Albrecht, Chairman

(Action)

Let’s have an approval of the evening’s agenda and the minutes. So we have a motion made by Charlie Tracy and a second by Kent Johnson. It has been a long time since we’ve had our last Wildlife Board meeting I have asked Chris to give the update and I will jump in and help him if he needs it. VOTING Motion was made by Charlie Tracy to approve today’s agenda and the minutes of the April 13, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Kent Johnson Motion passed unanimously 3) -by Chris Wood, Regional Supervisor

Wildlife Board Meeting Update

The last RAC meeting and Wildlife Board meeting was about Bucks, Bulls and Once-In-A-Lifetime. It also included antlerless permits, Hunter Education and CWMU. So first, with Bucks Bulls Once-In-A-Lifetime, the Division chose to increase tags on the Manti by 550 tags. This generated a lot of discussion with the sportsmen’s groups and some of the public did not want to see that big of an increase. We talked about this quite at the Board Meeting and they ended up splitting the difference. Instead of approving 550 additional tags they increased the number of permits to 275. That was halfway. Kevin Albrecht – So they did listen to our RAC and there is a lot of discussion and in fact Mike King took our recommendations and there is a lot of discussion in what we had in there. Chris Wood-Dr. King made that motion and it passed 5:1. Also from our RAC there was a motion to have the Abajo unit to remain at the 2015 numbers. We didn’t hear a lot about the Abajos from the public but we did

hear a lot about the Manti. None of the other RACs addressed the Abajos. There wasn’t a lot of discussion at the Board level. The Wildlife Board ended up approving the Division’s recommendations. There was a lot of discussion here about the youth elk opportunities and the ability to perhaps increase bull elk youth tags. The recommendation from this RAC was to increase the number of permits for the youth to 800 so that was to increase the Division’s recommendation by 300 additional tags. The Division proposed to increase it by 500 permits. This RAC and some members of the audience felt that we should increase it to 800. That motion was made at the Wildlife Board and it failed. There was a lot of discussion about how easy it is for a youth to draw one of those tags and what the elk opportunities are for the youth in the state. When a youth draws an elk tag they are no longer eligible for the rest of their youth years to draw that tag. If a youth puts in every year from the ages of 12-18 their likelihood of drawing one of those tags is pretty high. It is not guaranteed but it is very high. They also pointed out that if the youth does not draw a tag there are still plenty of opportunities for that youth such as buying an over-the-counter tag which there are 15,000 tags for the same exact unit just at a later date. Perhaps as an agency we need to market that better so that if they do not draw that tag they can still purchase one over-the-counter. There is also a discussion about Limited entry bull elk permits on the Manti. Our RAC voted to decrease the permits that the Division recommended. They recommended that we have 450 tags and our RAC recommended 430 tags. The Wildlife Board voted to keep those numbers at 450 permits as the Division recommended. There was a lot of discussion on the Hunter Education program, our RAC wanted to change two things- the first change was that we updated the curriculum and teach new learning standards and objectives. And the second thing was that we wanted to keep the marksmanship test. The presenter presented more information during the Wildlife Board meeting. Our RAC was the only one that voted to keep the sportsmanship marksman test while the other four RAC’s voted to do away with it. The Wildlife Board said that Hunter Education is to teach people how to be safe with a gun and that marksmanship can be learned at a later time. So the Board voted and they accepted the Division’s proposal which was to eliminate the marksmanship test and incorporate some of the new learning materials and that passed the board. And with that are there any questions? 4) -Chris Wood, Regional Supervisor

Regional Update

Brent Stettler is not here, as you learned last time that was his last meeting and in all the years that Brent was our Outreach Manager he’s only missed two RAC meetings. So hopefully myself, Brandon and Kathy Jo can figure this out together and make this sound work. We have hired a new

Outreach Manager. If you live in the Southeastern Utah you have heard a lot about the Bears Ears. We as a wildlife agency don’t have an official stance. I did go to the meeting in Bluff a few weeks ago. I was prepared to give comments from our agency about the proposed monument. Basically my comments were that whether it becomes a National Monument by the Antiquities Act by Pres. Obama or whether that the Public Lands Initiative passes through Congress, either one of those options, we want as a wildlife agency to maintain our authority and power as the wildlife managers as we currently do. The Grandstaircase Escalante National Monument, in their language, we are the wildlife authority and we are able to have wildlife management and we want to make sure that will remain the same with a Bears Ears area. We want to be able to actively manage wildlife which includes habitat restoration work, guzzler work, transplants, hunting, fishing, access in the area to be able to do those things. Surveys, flights, all of those things that we need to do as wildlife managers. As you know we have great populations of wildlife such as bighorn sheep, elk, deer, turkeys, fisheries in these areas. We have all of these great things because we as an agency have been able to actively manage wildlife. And we want to be able to maintain authority regardless of whether it becomes a monument or the Public Lands Initiative is passed. That was my comment to the group there in Bluff. I wasn’t able to get on the agenda. I had my name on the lottery to speak and they never called my name but our agency is preparing a letter to send to the Sec. Jewel that will give that statement We had a busy summer our aquatic section we had a very successful spawning of the Colorado cutthroat at Duck Fork. We took over 100,000 eggs, which is way more than what we needed. These will go off to the hatchery so they can grow and that we can transplant fish so we can have a healthy population throughout the state. We have also been doing toad surveys on the mountain above Joe’s Valley there is some evidence of the boreal toad reproducing. Our native fish biologist Dan Keller was been working on a pond in Cottonwood Creek near Orangeville. He is using the pond to raise and produce round tell chubs and blue head suckers. But before we put those two sensitive fish species in the pond we had to use rotenone and remove all of the catfish and other non-native fish that we did not want the pond. Morgan Jacobson is our new Conservation Outreach Manager. He will be joining our team in the Southeastern Region. We had a very extensive interview process. We hired three positions- 1 for Vernal, 1 for Price and 1 for Cedar City. All three of the Outreach Managers at those locations retired at the same time after being in those positions for 20-25 + years. Next time at the RAC, Morgan will be here and you all can meet him. He got his degree from Utah State University in Environmental Science with an emphasis in communications. He is originally from Montana he is currently working for the Deseret News as an Educational Reporter so he writes two articles

every day. He has a lot of skills and talents that will help our agency and our outreach efforts. We are excited to have him start in a few weeks. Our Habitat Section has also been very busy. Makeda has a presentation at the end of the meeting today. She will go over the projects that we are doing with sportsman dollars and Watershed Restoration funds. This week we trapped some chukars in Delta and we are translocating them to the Price area. Law Enforcement has been very busy. We had a saturation patrol on the Fourth of July weekend and they made a lot of contacts. They did write a few tickets but their efforts went a long ways with educating the public. Without an Outreach Manager we have had a hard time to figure out how we are going to hold events. In Moab they had an event called The Muley Kid’s Day event. Without Brent and Walt, Law Enforcement has stepped up and helped out with the event. We have had a few check points for boaters coming out of Lake Powell to educate them about spreading quagga mussels throughout the state. We just did surveys on the Henry’s for bison this week and we have also been on the mountain classifying elk. We are currently working a few partners and the public on elk management plans. Including the Nine Mile Plan. Derris is the RAC rep on that committee. Derris Jones- I didn’t know that. Chris Wood-We are going to ask Derris to be the RAC representative on that committee. We have not had too many nuisance bear issues this year. We have been very fortunate; years prior have been a lot harder. And with that I will take any questions?

Derris Jones- Bison survey do you know what the population is? Questions from the RAC

Guy Wallace- We got cut short on our surveys we didn’t get to fly the last flight. The helicopter had got called to go save a lost boy scout on the Unitahs. But we did fly the bulk of it and we were kind of right where we want to be. I think we counted 420 Buffalo and we expected to see about 460. So with that extra flight we probably would be right where we wanted to be at. Derris Jones- UHP helicopter? Guy Wallace- Yes. The calf numbers were up a little bit. So that is good. Chris wood – Are there any other questions? 5) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator

R657-11- Furbearer Rule Amendments(Action)


Derris Jones –When a pet owner has a pet caught in a trap they are only allowed to remove it? The wording says you can disturb or remove the trap. They are not allowed to remove the trap? Leslie McFarlane – There have been some incidents this past year in the northern part of the state where a lady couldn’t open the trap to let her dog out so she took the trap. And so I know for law enforcement to be a little bit sensitive to those kinds of things and allow somebody to take the trap to get their animal out and we hope that they will bring the trap back or report it. Derris Jones – That ought to be a requirement Leslie McFarlane – For somebody that has a domestic pet not is always going to read this rule to know that they have to bring it back. So if you make it a requirement that they’re not going to know that they have to bring it back. Derris Jones – A Person May Not Set a Trap or Any Trapping Device on Posted Private Property without Owners Permission. Does it have to be posted? Or does the usual agricultural doesn’t have to be posted. Does it follow the rest of the trespassing rule? Leslie McFarlane – yes Derris Jones – If you’re trapping on farmland and it’s not posted you can’t trap on that? Leslie McFarlane –So we didn’t make any changes to that part. Derris Jones – It just seems that it’s not meshing with the trespassing rules as far as cultivated and irrigated land. Leslie McFarlane –I can look at that before the 14th to make sure with Marty and Greg. They helped me with the revisions and that was probably not addressed. Charlie Tracy – Can they just set the trap on private land if it’s not even posted? Can they still do that? Or does it have to be posted? Leslie McFarlane – Well that is what Derris is referring to. On cultivated lands and I can’t remember the rule. Can you remember it Derris? Kent Johnson – I can remember a little bit of it, but basically the gist of the rule if property is visibly being used for something such as cultivated or irrigating, if it has a fence corrals and things like that on it then it is considered posted. That is the Utah law. Leslie McFarlane – Right. In green farms it would have to be posted for you not to trespass. And that is that every corner every entrance and crossings. Kent Johnson – So the trapping rule that Derris is referring to it just falls underneath that rule? Leslie McFarlane – Yes. So I’ll just make sure that it is clear in that part before the Board meeting.

Derris Jones – That is just my suggestion that it just matches with the trespass rule. Leslie McFarlane – Thank you I didn’t even think about that. I will make sure that it matches. Kevin Albrecht – Any other questions from the RAC?

Questions and Comments from the Public

Shayne Thompson SFW-We would like to support the full Division recommendations

RAC Discussion

No comments from the RAC VOTING Motion was made by Charlie Tracy to accept R657-11 Furbearer Rule Amendments as presented. Seconded by Karl Ivory Motion passed unanimously 6) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator

2016 Bobcat Management Plan (Action)


Derris Jones – How did they come up with six tags as a baseline? Leslie McFarlane – That was in the previous and we just kept at the same. Derris Jones – What made them pick six of the previous? Leslie McFarlane – I have no idea. That was Kevin, so I don’t know. Derris Jones – And maybe this question has been asked. Is March for closing going to be baseline? Leslie McFarlane – Yes Derris Jones – What was the reason for that date? Leslie McFarlane – So I looked at all of the surrounding states around Utah and seen when they ended their trapping season and all of them went till 1 March or in that timeframe. The other thing we looked at was

trapping by week and we looked at female versus male and earlier in the season you catch more females and later in the season you catch more males. So we thought we would lengthen the season to reduce the capture of the females. Derris Jones – Do you know what the percentage of bobcats are they get sold at the Utah Trappers Association? Leslie McFarlane – I don’t. But Kent Fowden from the Utah Trappers Association might be able to answer that question. Derris Jones – Do you know if they are going to adjust their auction or their sale? Leslie McFarlane – He can answer that. Kent Fowden Utah Trappers Association-There are no intentions at this time to adjust our sales. There is more dynamics to our sell throughout the United States than a cat season. Derris Jones – Do you know what percent of cats harvested in Utah get sold at this? Kent Fowden- About 88%.


No questions


Shayne Thompson – We would like to first of all show our appreciation to Kent Fowden and the Utah Trappers also the houndsmen. SFW support the Division’s recommendations as presented. Kent Fowden-We appreciate the ability to work with the Division and Law Enforcement, biologists and houndsmen and trappers together. It can be chaos.(inaudible away from the mic.) Accepted the Divisions plan as presented. Dave Erley Grand Canyon Trust- We support it overall. Watch it carefully and make sure that instead of depending 3 variables we recommend that 2 variables be considered. I do appreciate the need for predators and having them in the system is important.

RAC Discussion

Karl Ivory-This is an annual adjustment to (inaudible) too? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, so the permit recommendation will occur based on every year’s harvest information. So that any of those variables. Like he said if two or more variables are out then we decrease seasonally and if

three of them are out then we put (inaudible). Karl Ivory- Thank you. VOTING Motion was made by Derris Jones to accept the Bobcat Management Plan as presented Seconded by Kent Johnson Motion passed unanimously

7) Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017(Action

) – Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator


Todd Huntington-If those categories keep going up in the positive, you are going to lengthen the season and increase tags? Leslie McFarlane-Not passed the dates we will leave it at base. Todd Huntington-So what if they do keep going up? Leslie McFarlane –The bobcats tend to pattern. They have a cycle able relationship with the rabbit population. Right now our rabbit population is up. And they are very high. So in response are bobcat population is high. When the rabbit population declines typically you’re going to see the bobcat population decline as well. So we expect to see typical responses in our populations. Kevin Albrecht-When the permit numbers went to six did you see any significant changes in harvest? Leslie McFarlane-No, that was back here. Here is the cap and I believe it was before it. This was when the cap was removed we sold 13,000 and the harvest was about 3,000 which is the same as 2006. But it never exceeded anything historically. Todd Huntington-What do they cost? Leslie McFarlane-We increased them about 2 years ago and they cost $15 per tag and $45 for non-residents. Kevin Albrecht-Any questions from the audience?


Eric Luke SFW-With that baseline, if those numbers continue to go up

and we don’t see population adjust with the rabbit population if there means in the plan to increase that baseline? Leslie McFarlane-No, baseline is baseline and that is what we will always go back to. We won’t increase baseline. Honestly historically when you look at the data it always follows jack rabbit population. That is not a concern. Kevin Albrecht – Any other questions from the public? Then let’s go to comments.


Shayne Thompson SFW- We support the Division’s recommendations as presented. Kent Fowden Utah Trappers Association- We support the Division’s recommendations as presented. The trend over 30 years is pretty accurate. Kevin Albrecht – With that we will go to comments from the RAC

RAC Discussion

Charlie Tracy-Do you see many youth’s coming into it? Leslie McFarlane-Meeting with the Utah Trappers Association, they have things that increase the interests of the youth. That has picked up quite a bit. We are seeing a little bit. We are just having a hard time getting furbearer harvester education instructors. Derris Jones-Do you know if the years that cat populations were up and the baseline with six tags, is there more relatives starting to buy Bobcat tags. I guess what I’m getting at is we are not raising the baseline at six. In good years the same trappers are catching more than their six. Have you tried to correlate that at all and to see if we would be better off to increase the baseline instead of having people break the law? Leslie McFarlane-Well historically the most tags that anybody has ever purchased was eight. I went with what everybody was comfortable with. We felt strongly that the baseline works. Derris Jones-I just think that they are going around baseline. They are just buying more. Leslie McFarlane-Hopefully our law enforcement is aware of that. VOTING Motion was made by Charlie Tracy to accept Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-2017 as presented Seconded by Chris Micoz Motion passed unanimously

8) Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 (Action)

- Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator

Questions from RAC

Derris Jones – Can you go back to the age harvested.(Inaudible) is a harvest going up over five years old that the trophy value is also increasing? Leslie McFarlane – Yes, part of the difference that you might see here is that in our southern unit we had snow and so we did not see an increase in harvest and I think that is probably a factor here. Todd Huntington – Are you looking for similar type of harvest to bobcat where you want to percentage or a larger percentage of young males? Are the cougar similar to that? Leslie McFarlane – What we want to see and what we are looking at we want to lease see 15 to 20% of the harvest to be males that are adults that are five years of age or older. Todd Huntington – This means that if it’s 40 %( inaudible) Leslie McFarlane – Well it’s not so much that it’s too many but we did have older age class structure in our population Todd Huntington – So they’re living longer and surviving. Leslie McFarlane – Correct Karl Ivory – Just a question on the livestock depredation slide. In the early 2000 (inaudible coughing) the number of cougars removed for livestock depredation and that is a really significant drop. Is there reason for that? Leslie McFarlane – We did study our harvest around those years. So if you look here we had a lot higher harvest those years. We probably had a little increase in population that we’ve been able to decrease the bigger population quite a bit from these years of harvest and now we are starting to see that creep back up. That is the reason for some of the recommendations and some of the areas where we have some livestock depredation just too kind of lower the numbers in the areas that we have seen an increase. Todd Huntington – On the split versus where you go to the harvest objective, how come that is cut off and why is the harvest objective go until the next November? Why doesn’t it equal? Leslie McFarlane – Part of it is because the unit that they are on harvest objective is originally put in and used as a predator management strategy

we are not using that in this way. The split season and honestly I don’t know the answer to that. (Inaudible) some of it is historical and was before me. Todd Huntington – Sounds like tradition. Leslie McFarlane – Honestly I would have to look and see if there is any reasoning behind it. I can find out and let you know. Part of it might be also to do with the pursuit season that also ends in May. Todd Huntington – What is the difference between harvest objective and unlimited quota? Are they kind of the same? Leslie McFarlane – We only have four unlimited quota units in the state and those units are primarily bighorn sheep units such as the San Rafael. The harvest objective has a set limit versus the unlimited quota has no limit and on these bighorn sheep units there is no quota. But I can tell you there is very little harvest. It is very rough terrain that on top of it last year we allowed you to buy a second cougar permit if you hunted those unlimited quota units and only six permits were sold. Darrel Mecham-It ended in May like the La Sal’s you don’t end (inaudible static) Leslie McFarlane –That is part of it that we don’t want hounds when we have fawns on the ground. I will think about that one (inaudible) Kevin Albrecht – Are there any questions from the audience?


No Questions


Shayne Thompson SFW-We are in support of the recommendations with a couple of exceptions concerning the Southwest Manti we would like to increase that by three permits due to deer numbers not doing well and where all the surrounding units are split season would like to propose that the Southwest Manti do the same. Again I have been personally meeting with a few other members and working with the DWR. We’ve been working with them on deer transplants and trying to see what is actually going on with their deer herds on the mountain. On the south end of the mountain, herds are really plummeting. I am really concerned about the south Manti. We put several feet on the ground trying to find fawns, try to study these deer and to see why our population is dropping. I’m not targeting lions by all means individually but they do have an impact on her recovery plan. We would really exceed that unit go to a split unit and maybe get some of your target cats there. In addition to the split unit would like to see some youth permits so that we get them involved. We are still trying to figure out where our deer herd is going. We’re trying to figure that out. Additionally the Boulder Mountains are a concern. We wonder if we can get some more tags for down the southern end. And we

do appreciate all the efforts and the communication with the DWR has been better. We appreciate that thanks. Derris Jones- The Southwest Manti? Shayne Thompson – Yes the whole South Manti numbers are way off and they are not recuperating at all we put a lot of effort on that mountain to try and find a population of deer and it is really frustrating to see no deer on that mountain. Don’t think we are recouping any fawns up there. We actually found some dead fawns and we’re trying to figure out why they are dying. Derris Jones-Do you know how many tag increases you’re thinking? Shayne Thompson – Well, went with just three on the Southwest and making it a split unit about still is a trophy unit for sure. Todd Huntington –It looks like the Division is proposing 3 are you still good with that? Shayne Thompson- Yes. Kevin Albrecht- So would you like the west side to mirror the Eastside? Shayne Thompson –Yes (inaudible away from the mic) you guys are doing a really good job on the southeast area and the Northeast area. I do appreciate all the effort and the related work with everybody. Thank you. Dave Erley Grand Canyon Trust-I would like to think the RAC for the opportunity to speak. We would like to see the pursuit reduced especially in the La Sal’s especially in May. There are an awful lot of conflicts going on. Beyond that we listen to the cougars been blamed and no talk of the elk have an impact on that reduced number of deer. We do not support the increase numbers on cougars. Down on Elk Ridge we have number of exposures and the Forest Service does also and it will show what the elk are doing to Aspen (inaudible coughing) with me maintaining the fence as the last 14 to 15 years and we are clearly seeing no aspen recruitment outside the exposures and within the exposures we have triple improvement. We have willow regenerating in all of the exposures. There is a huge problem going on right now related to elk hunting in springs. There are salt licks and mineral licks at almost every spring visited by elk on Elk Ridge. There are usually 3 to 4 cameras on some springs. Mineral licks with huge divots occurring from either the minerals leaking into the ground and the animals looking wills out. It is a real issue. I realize that the DWR does not support baiting on certain things and that this is a Forest Service issue but Service would like to work with the DWR and I know this from discussing it with them and try to come up with a unified policy to be just like the permittees and they had to keep their salts and mineral licks at least a quarter-mile off of the water and that the hunters would have to do the same. Thank you very much Eric Luke SFW-Just want to touch a little bit on our reasoning for the Southwest Manti. We had the opportunity Shayne and I spent this last weekend up on the southeast Manti with several of the Division representatives and biologists including Randy Larson that did a mule deer study from BYU. We had some ideal conditions with overcast skies we

covered a lot of country. Where we used to see hundreds of deer we saw I didn’t take an honest account but I’m guessing we seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 35 deer a total of 22 to 23 does and 1 fawn. Only one fawn to that many does that is really alarming. We also had seen one lion. Contrary to what some people believe we are not out to decimate the lions. We do want to see our deer herd recover. Looking at the data here both sides of the South Manti are in predator management because of the deer transplants that have been taken place and they plan on taking place again next year. The current female harvest is only 28% and that is well below the objective for female harvest in a predator management unit. But that is 40% right? So there definitely is some room there to take some more harvest. And again I’m not blaming the cougars for our deer herd problem. But they are definitely the factor for the recovery program. I just want to support the proposal that Shayne had made and to support the proposal that the division had made with just that exception. We would like to see the Southwest Manti go to a split unit with an increase on the limited entry permits from 5 to 8.

RAC Discussion

Darrel Mecham-What’s the Division data on deer population? And is that concern? Leslie McFarlane-Let me grab my computer. The deer data itself is for the Manti in a whole. The population objective for mule deer on the unit is 38,000 we had an abundance of population at 25,700. So the percent of objective is at 68% of where it should be. The survival estimate for the past three years and this is what we look at when we look at predator management. The past three years it has been its .77,.82,.82. So to put into predator management if it’s less than 65% of objective in this past year it was at 68% so it wouldn’t qualify there. But it is less than 90% of objective over the past three years at 77 and 82%. When we look at the mule deer models for that unit all of those units are stable. And it is at less than 84% survival for the past two or three years. It does qualify for predator management based on the years. Darrel Mecham-Did they increase tags on their last year deer tags? Todd Huntington-275 Darrel Mecham-I’m trying to get this through my brain. We raise deer tags and we raise lion tags why don’t we leave the deer tags there and let the deer survive. And not kill more of both and I don’t know where we are going from here. It seems that every time we come here this gets more (inaudible static) is just kind of frustrating to me because I don’t understand it I guess? Todd Huntington – Darrel our RAC voted to not increase the deer on the Manti and that is what our RAC voted for. Darrel Mecham-I know that’s what I am saying. It is ludicrous to me to raise deer tags when the population is low and now I’ve got a raise lion

tags. Kevin Albrecht-Guy, can you speak to the difference of the numbers between the north Manti and the South and is there a difference? Darrel Mecham-Just explain this to me. It just don’t look right. Guy Wallace-The question is the difference between the north Manti in the south Manti with the deer numbers? Kevin Albrecht-With the deer and the recruitment. Guy Wallace-In terms of deer numbers there are more numbers on the north Manti than the south Manti. Production is slightly different but it is pretty similar a little bit going on with the south. Production has been okay in terms of those two. Kevin Albrecht-If you can comment on the number of deer fawns that you are seeing in the summertime? Guy Wallace-We really don’t look at that. We basically do our fawn counts in November. And that is well after summer is over and right before we go into winter time. We have not looked at the fawns in the summertime. But it is fairly similar when we do our fall count. Kevin Albrecht – One more question. I heard that there was a lion harvested this week that was into the sheep on the southeast Manti. Does that show any indication of population at all? Guy Wallace – No I think it’s just kind of coincidence. You’re doing good just to see one and when we were out looking this last weekend it was unusual that we seen one. Recently we have had several calls regarding bears and sheep on the south Manti so we have both. We don’t have any indication on whether that is unusual. It is unusual to see a cougar anyway. Karl Ivory-Just clarification I was talking to Derris on this the unit for region I mean regional boundaries Leslie McFarlane-This recommendation is actually made out of the Central Region office Karl Ivory-So we don’t know. Is there a biologist here that can speak on their behalf? Leslie McFarlane-So when we went to the Central Region RAC the biologist just felt he wanted to be conservative on cougar depredation. There is obviously some opportunities to be able to increase those. But he chose to do that and we support his recommendations. Charlie Tracy-Actually, really we can even make a recommendation on it? Derris Jones – We have statewide authority. Charlie Tracy-How many bighorn sheep do we have down there on the San Juan desert? Are they disappearing? Guy Wallace-We are at 64% on the north Manti and 63 on the South Manti for fawn production. Buck to doe ratio is little bit different and it is a little bit lower on the south Manti and it is on the north Manti. As far as the question on the bighorn sheep on the San Juan desert. Numbers wise it actually incorporates three different units the north San Juan, the South

San Juan and in the San Juan River. The San Juan River sheep we have had transplants to try and build the population there. The south San Juan has been struggling and populations are down. The north San Juan population has been down for a long, long time. There was a die off back in the late 70s and it never recovered so basically on the San Juan the population has been struggling. Charlie Tracy-Do you think it’s due to the cougars? Guy Wallace-No, it is probably most likely disease. We have done some testing and we did some disease profiling. We did find that there is Mycoplasma in the herd which is one that we are really concerned about the effects bighorn sheep. It has been struggling for a really long time. Charlie Tracy-Is there a lot of cats there do you know? Guy Wallace-That is hard to say, we don’t know. It is going to be very difficult and that is why maybe this is an incentive because it is an unrestricted. Charlie Tracy-Maybe they can treat one or two or something I don’t know Guy Wallace-Very seldom do we get snow. So it’s going to be a hard harvest. VOTING Motion was made by Todd Huntington to accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-2017 as presented, with the exception that on the southwest Manti the number of permits increase from five to eight and make it a split unit. Seconded by Derris Jones Motion Passed unanimously 9) - Kenny Johnson, Administrative Section Chief

Proposed Fee Schedule (Action)


Chris Micoz- A nonresident multi-season deer tags it’s 845 and a nonresident elk multi-season it is 700. That seems backwards? Kenny Johnson-Different opportunity, this multi-season deer is for a limited entry opportunity. Where the elk is a general season opportunity. So it’s kind of a little bit of difference in quality. One of the possibilities with the general season elk is that you can just go buy it over the counter. With the limited entry deer in order to get a good unit you have to go

through the draw and you will be probably applying 5 to 10 years to be able to have that opportunity. Chris Micoz-Ok Karl Ivory-On the multi-season elk would that be like a dedicated hunter type of program too? Or would you just go buy it over-the-counter and you get to hunt for three seasons with an increased fee? Kenny Johnson-We don’t know the details right now I don’t think the idea is to duplicate the dedicated hunter program I believe this is just purely over-the-counter go purchase it opportunity to hunt all three seasons. Karl Ivory-On the deer the increased fee for the multi-season do you think that would limit or decrease the applications for that type of hunt? Kevin Albrecht-No I don’t believe that would impact it. It is one of those upper and premium limited entries. So for guy really wants to hold out for that multi-season opportunity he still is going to apply for it.


No Questions


No Comments

RAC Discussion

Kevin Albrecht-One thing I will say and it’s not for the fee but for that multi-season hunt for the elk I will just make the comment that the opportunity to have the family hunt with the deer overtime has really gone down just because of the unit by unit, the number tags. I see this being an opportunity with the elk committee putting their heads together and being an opportunity that families can really participate in that. Especially if one member of the family enjoys archery hunting and the other may enjoy muzzleloader but there is still an opportunity that those families can spend time together. I think it’s one of the better ways to have recruitment when the families can do it together so I just give it thumbs up for thinking outside the box. VOTING Motion was made by Kent Johnson to accept the Proposed Fee Schedule as presented

Seconded by Charlie Tracy Motion Passed unanimously 10) -Makeda Hanson, Habitat Program Manager

Lower San Rafael HMP Management Plan (Action)

Question from the RAC

Darrel Mecham-You know on the Frenchman’s when you first took over used to be able to go out there and see 10 to 15 bucks and quite a few does. There was a lot of deer that were using that. And now you don’t see anything out there anymore. I did see two bighorn sheep out there. Used to be able to out there and see dear but now just like anything else sees anything. Makeda Hansen-We have some of the water changes throughout the years so it is a challenge. But we are working towards putting up land game. At least on some of these properties. We did transplant some yurkey’s down in that area we will see how they do. Kent Johnson- Has there been any thoughts or discuss some kind of lease for the Frenchman? Putting Agriculture back in there? That will actually help the wildlife. Makeda Hansen-Part of the problem with that is our rights are a little restricted because we do have the water rights to in stream flow now. Because the Hunter power plant actual owes the water rights and we just hold them. They are actually able to take those water rights up stream if they need them. So that is a little bit of a challenge.


No Questions


No Comments

RAC Discussion

Makeda Hansen- Basically we take these plans through the coordination committees, then through the counties, and then we bring them to you

guys just to let you know what we are doing to the properties. Ultimately our director signs these plans. They just want to make sure you guys are aware of it and your okay with what is written. Charlie Tracy-There is not much that we can do. VOTING Motion was made by Charlie Tracy to accept The Lower San Rafael HMP Management Plan as presented Seconded by Darrel Mecham Motion passed unanimously 11) - Makeda Hanson, Habitat Program Manager

Habitat Restoration Work Update (Informational)


Karl Ivory-Have most of those had specific treatment to them? Makeda Hansen- Not all of them. Some of them were treated and some of them are untreated. Habitat is doing some good stuff you always have the opportunity to come out help us. If you have any interest just let us know will get you out there to help us. Charlie Tracy-I think we’re going to kill just as many deer between Monticello and Highway 69. They are all coming to the end of the fence and crossing. Kevin Albrecht- Are there some other phases? Makeda Hansen-We just worked on phase 1. There is probably some things that we need to fix in phase 1 before we start phase 2. We are hoping to eventually connect Monticello with wildlife fencing by double Canyon which is further south. Like I said that 3.3 miles of fence is $1.4 million so depending on the funding it can be a challenge. But we are working towards that area because it is a large issue and has been a big issue for a while. Charlie Tracy-Most of that cost is the underpass for the elk. Makeda Hansen-Right, so there is a culvert right there at Montezuma Canyon about 7 foot five and typically they won’t use something that small syllables underpasses are pretty important. And that is a huge cost especially when you have to divert traffic to put them in. And traffic controls can be the biggest cost of that project. Which is a nightmare for me. With my first project there was some cost that it was not anticipating for sure.

Kevin Albrecht-How do you manage when you do move into town how do you manage the fence when you get into town? Is it going to be fenced in there? Makeda Hansen-So, it’s not really fenced in town necessarily but where it is now we kind of tried to tie into some landscaped areas that fence issues are a challenge. But mostly were just trying to tie into natural features. Makeda Hansen –We we just finished in April south of the learn where there crossing’s are and reduce the end of fencing issues with time. We’ll just have to monitor it.


No Questions


No Comments

RAC Discussion

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Adjournment

Public in Attendance: 8 The next Wildlife Board meeting will take place on September 1st, 2016 at 9 a.m. in the DNR Board Room. The date of the next SER RAC meeting September 14, 2016 @ 6:30pm. The location will be the John Wesley Powell Museum in Green River.

of 19

SOUTHERN REGION RAC MEETING Beaver High School, Beaver, UT

August 2, 2016 7:00 p.m. 1. REVIEW & ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES AND AGENDA MOTION: To accept the minutes and agenda as written. VOTE: Unanimous. 2. R657-11 FURBEARER RULE AMENDMENTS MOTION: To accept the Furbearer Rule Amendments R657-11 as presented. VOTE: Unanimous 3. BOBCAT MANAGEMENT PLAN MOTION: To accept the Bobcat Management Plan as presented. VOTE: Unanimous 4. FURBEARER AND BOBCAT HARVEST RECOMMENDATIONS 2016-2017 MOTION: To accept the Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations 2016-17 as presented. VOTE: Unanimous 5. COUGAR RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULE AMENDMENTS FOR 2016-17 MOTION: To accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-17 as presented with the exception that the Plateau Boulder, Fish lake and Thousand Lakes permits be increased by 30% and the Southwest Manti permits increase to 8. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: That the Thousand Lakes unit be excluded from the increase. VOTE ON AMENDMENT: 8 in favor, 1 opposed VOTE ON AMENDEND MOTION: 8 in favor, 1 opposed 6. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE

of 19

MOTION: To accept the Proposed Fee Schedule as presented. VOTE: Unanimous

SOUTHERN REGION RAC MEETING Beaver City Center, Beaver, UT

August 2, 2016 7:00 p.m. RAC Members Present DWR Personnel

Present Wildlife Board

Present RAC Members

Not Present Gene Boardman Mike Worthen Nick Jorgensen Rusty Aiken Dave Black (Chairman) Layne Torgerson Wade Heaton Mack Morrell Craig Laub Brian Johnson

Stephanie Rainey Kenny Johnson Gary Bezzant Leslie McFarlane Teresa Griffin Dave Smedley Josh Pollock Dustin Schaible Phil Tuttle Giani Julander Clint Mecham Jason Nicholes Denton Nielson Vance Mumford Jim Lamb Chuck Chamberlain

Donnie Hunter Steve Dalton

Harry Barber Dale Bagley Sean Kelly

Dave Black called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. There were approximately 6 interested parties in attendance in addition to RAC members, members of the Wildlife Board, and Division employees. Dave Black introduced himself and asked RAC members to introduce themselves. Dave Black explained RAC meeting procedures. Dave Black: Review and Acceptance of Agenda and Minutes (action) Craig Laub made the motion to accept the agenda and minutes as presented. Mack Morrell seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

of 19

Wildlife Board Update and Regional Update: -Gary Bezzant, Habitat program Manager Dave Black: Okay the next agenda item is the wildlife board update. Wade filled in for me. But it’s been a while even since we were there. So give it your best shot Wade. Wade Heaton: Alright, I'm sure it won't be quite accurate but it will, it will get you close. So it was the bucks and bulls permit numbers. Southern Region had several recommendations that were going to be separate from the Division's recommendations, in addition to, there was one that we had proposed that ended up getting, ending up being kind of a compromise on the wildlife board with the Dutton, or the, I guess the mega unit, whatever it ends up being. It was kind of a compromise that, where they ended up on numbers. We did recommend I believe an additional 600 youth spike tags. Yeah youth any bull, that's right and I believe the board ended up compromising on that and going with 300. Everything else passed about as we asked or recommended. Something like that. Dave Black: K, thank you and now we would like a regional update from Gary. Gary Bezzant: Alright I talked with a lot of the managers today to find out what the different groups were up to. Probably the biggest thing is we've had a lot of staff changes over the summer since you guys have met last. So we would like to just introduce a few new people tonight. The first would be that Lynn Chamberlain retired, retired or quit, I don't know what you would call it. He is working for Washington County now. But Phil Tuttle, we hired him to replace him, this is Phil right here. I don't know, Phil do you want to take a minute and introduce yourself. Phil Tuttle: Sure. So, oh wow that’s pretty loud, I am Phil Tuttle. I grew up in Millard County in Holden. I've been working as an aquatics biologist up in the Northern Region and, here I am, back in Cedar. I went to school at SUU and love Southern Utah, happy to be here. So, look forward to working with you all. Thanks. Gary Bezzant: Alright and then also, I'm pretty sure this happened since you guys probably last met. Riley Peck our biologist up in Fillmore and in the Beaver units he moved up and took the Wildlife Manager position in Springville and so Dave Smedley has replaced him as the biologist. Wave your hand Dave. And then because Dave left our farm bill biologist position in Richfield to take that position we hired Denton Nielson, he's right here. He's our new farm bill biologist in Richfield. And then we also hired another new farm bill biologist in Cedar City. He's not here tonight but his name is Stan Gurley. And then Cody Jones our conservation officer up in Millard County took a position in Vernal and so we have a new conservation officer coming August 20th, we lucked out and were able to find somebody that had some experience working with the Smithfield Police Department and so he didn't have to go through POST and everything so we have actually been able to move quickly to get a new CO up in Millard County and he will be on, on August 20th. And then Gianni who is sitting there, been helping with this for a lot of years decided to move on as well. She took a position with State Parks so we will be looking to replace her soon. And then also our land owner specialist, Jacob Selby, moving on and so we will be replacing him in the near future as well. So a lot of staff changes, some are, kind of blew us away as an agency. I don't think anybody saw most of that coming but it’s been a lot of time doing human resource work this summer. The aquatics staff, I visited with them this afternoon, the thing they wanted me to bring to you is they have right now at Lake Powell they have a Walleye contest going on. They've tagged a bunch of Walleye. They've had about 700 people sign up for far. They've had one

of 19

Walleye caught so far with a tag on it. The tag goes, or the contest goes for a year. What they are trying to do is just educate people about the opportunity to, to fish for Walleye in Lake Powell and so there will be several different concentrated efforts as the different better Walleye fishing times come around. They will make a lot of public releases and also tag some additional fish right before those times and try to make it a good opportunity to get the public educated about that opportunity at Lake Powell and so to those of you that would like to do that or know of of people you can spread that word that that's going on. With the habitat section, that's what I am over, a couple of things I would just let you know about, one, I would like to invite the whole RAC, we have a, Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, or the Watershed Restoration Initiative, we have a summer tour planned for August 11th. We will be looking at the Paunsaugunt Plateau, looking at some projects that have been planned there in conjunction with the Forest Service, Division of Wildlife Resources and a lot of different entities and so would definitely like to invite you. If you are interested in that get with me after the meeting and I will get your email address and I will forward you the meeting time and location and all that. The other thing that the habitat section has going on this time of year we definitely pay a lot of attention to fires. We've got really just 2 big fires that we've paid attention to in the region so far. The one that is most recent is the Lower Epps Fire up on the Fillmore Unit. And it ended up going just 5600 acres. They went to 100% contained on that last night so we're moving now to rehabilitation efforts with that and we will be working closely with the Forest Service and then that fire did impact some wildlife management areas up there as well so we'll have some internal stuff we're doing as well to, to do that. And then we're also working with the Forest Service on the Pine Valley Ranger District, they have the Pine Valley Fire still going up there. Throws up some smoke once in a while but for the most part its contained and just kind of in a remote wilderness area where they are just kind of keeping their eye on it. About 2200 acres, a lot of low intensity burn but just should do a lot of good in the areas where it has been burning. From Teresa's crew, the wildlife staff, had a really fun thing happen in the last couple of weeks, they've been working on it for multiple years but they were able to work with Arizona Game and Fish and we released 88 gambels quail somewhere between here and St. George, I'm not sure where, don't know if they are disclosing where but really exciting to have the opportunity to release gambles quail in the region and get them trying to to supplement them and get them up and going again in the southern area there. And then the really big thing they've got going on is this is the year we update elk unit management plans and so there is elk unit committees that have been formed on some of those units. The first unit committee meeting was held July 27th for the Southwest desert and then on August 4th, this Thursday, they are calling it the Greater Plateau Complex which is the Monroe, Fish Lake, Boulder, and Mt. Dutton units, that will be a meeting all together to discuss those plans and possibilities for managing those all together so that’s on August 4th. That will be at the Sevier County Administration building at 7, 6, 6, ok. And then August 9th, right here in Beaver we will be having the meeting for the Beaver Unit Management Plan. That will be at the Forest Service Office at 6, you awake Dave? And then August 15th the Panguitch Elk Unit Management Plan will have the committee there at the Cedar City Division of Wildlife Resources Office and that one will also be at 6, I'm going to assume since that's what everybody else said. And in talking to the outreach staff, they've got a lot of stuff going on as well. Dedicated hunters season is in full swing with the archery hunt just a few weeks away. Working with a lot of dedicated hunters right now taking advantage of that opportunity to utilize that labor to do a lot of good things for wildlife. They’ve got a bunch of birds in the day old chick program that are growing well. They’re anticipating they’ll be able to release about a thousand birds. Both chucker and pheasant throughout the, the region from that program. It has been a good one. And then we’ve got the goat watch scheduled this Saturday on Beaver Mountain. Phil, you are meeting at the gas station here? 8:00 Saturday morning to go up and view the goats up on the Tushers there. Then a couple of seminars they’ve got planned in September. They’ve got a water fowl clinic to be held at Gunnison Bend

of 19

Reservoir September 10th and then an upland and water fowl seminar on September 20th and 21st in Richfield and again if you want more details on that we can get you the information emailed out to you. And then the other really fun one that they had, the last item, the youth hunter education challenge, they just are, the Utah team had several members from Southern Utah, just went back to Pennsylvania, and competed in the international competition and placed third. And I heard, if I heard correctly there was representatives from all fifty states and several countries so to place third overall on that is a really neat thing for our, our Southern Region people to be participating on that team and to go and represent our state well. So that was an exciting thing. And that’s what I have for an update. Dave Black: Thank you Gary. Before we get started on the first action item, which would be number 5 on the agenda, I just want to go through the meeting order real quick. First we’ll hear a presentation from the Division of Wildlife and then following that we’ll entertain questions from the RAC and if there is any questions from the audience we’d entertain those at that time. And again please keep that just to a question. And then there’s a, a time for comments from the audience but in order to do that, please feel out a comment card. We have some already that have been brought up but, make sure you get one of those if you want to comment. And then we’ll entertain comments from the RAC and then we’d move forward with motions and, and voting. So with that we’ll move forward to this next item which is from Leslie McFarlane. R657-11 Furbearer Rule Amendments (action) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator (see attachment 1) Questions from the RAC: Dave Black: Thank you Leslie. Do we have any questions from the RAC? Mike Worthen: Yeah Leslie I have one question on your, it says a person may not disturb or remove any trapping device except and the second part, the owner of a domestic pet that has been caught. Is he authorized to remove that trap or just remove his pet from the trap? Leslie McFarlane: Well we have some situations where if somebody is not familiar with a trapping device, they may have to take that trap with that animal in it, in order to get their animal out of the trap. So, yeah we would allow them to remove the trap but we hope that they would bring it back. Mike Worthen: That was my question, if there, and I know some people would run on em and catch their pet and just take the trap, put their dog out or whatever, take the trap and either call the Division or just keep it and I didn’t know if that. Leslie McFarlane: We want them to either leave the trap right where it is and call the Division and tell the Division they had an incident or if they have to take their pet, like I know some people are not strong enough to open the jaws on some of those traps so if they take it I hope that they would turn it into the Division. Mike Worthen: I am wondering if there is any way to maybe make that a little more clear for pet owners?

of 19

Leslie McFarlane: We can, we can work on the wording there. Dave Black: Any other questions? Questions from the Public: None Comments from the Public: None RAC discussion and vote: Layne Torgerson: I will make a motion that we accept Rule R657-11 Fur Bearer Rule Amendment as presented. Rusty Aiken: I’ll second it Dave Black: Okay, we have a motion from Layne, second from Rusty, any discussion? Layne Torgerson made the motion to accept the Furbearer Rule Amendments R657-11 as presented. Rusty Aiken seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Bobcat Management Plan (action) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator (see attachment 1) Questions from the RAC: Dave Black: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the RAC? Mack Morrell: When you have those 3 performance targets is low you said permits were coming on a first come first serve basis, is there a limit to the permits to fill? Leslie McFarlane: Yeah, so like this last year I think we sold 9000 permits. So if we had to put a cap on next year we would offer 80% of the 9000 that we sold this year. Mack Morrell: Yeah but what about per individual, still 6? Leslie McFarlane: No, and so that, its implemented in addition to decreasing the season length and the number of tags per person. Dave Black: K, anybody else? Gene Boardman: Are there any trends of more people wanting to trap or use hounds on bobcats?

of 19

Leslie McFarlane: So I would say that yeah we do see increasing trends, usually though it cycles with the price per pelt. When the price per pelt on bobcat goes up we do see more people buying tags. When we first removed the cap we sold 13,000 almost 14,000 bobcat tags which is a record for us. We’ve never sold that many before. So and I would, I would actually refer to the trapper’s association. They would have a better idea on how many people they see recruiting into the industry. Gene Boardman: If the bobcat prices go up and you sell 13,000 tags, then the population goes down, the cut would be from 13,000 instead of from 9,000, right? Leslie McFarlane: Yeah, so if, if things were not but you would kind of catch it in your trend actually because you would see in your harvest, so if we, so when we sold 13,000 that’s not what was harvested. We didn’t harvest really any more than we historically had harvested. Previous years, even though we sold more, part of it has to do with experience of the people coming in, and then part of it has to do with winter conditions and things like that. But what you would do is you would monitor what you saw in your harvest and if it was in a negative way, like if we over harvested in one year, certainly that would come out and our recommendations would be for a shorter season length and a shorter, fewer tags per person. Gene Boardman: Your personal estimate of what bobcats are going to do, is this situation going to stay pretty steady with, with what you are doing now that you won’t have to put on any restrictions? Leslie McFarlane: No what bobcats tend to do is they cycle with rabbit populations and there is a clear, there is clear research that indicates that. Right now we have very high rabbit populations and so we’re in a really high bobcat population scenario. Usually two to three years after you see rabbit populations decline then you will catch that in your bobcat harvest and, bobcat numbers. Gene Boardman: Thank you. Dave Black: K, do we have any, Wade, go ahead. Wade Heaton: How do we determine the adult survival rate? Leslie McFarlane: You are going to get me on these models again. We do take the ages and our biometrician, I wish she was here because she’s fantastic with it. But we do put the ages in and its kind of like we do with bears in that you reconstruct what you have and you can build it back to see what you had to have to get there. Dave Black: Okay, any questions from the audience? We do have some comment cards. We’ll go to those next. It looks like we have 2 cards. The first one is Kent. And then Lee Tracy. And when you get to the mic just please state your full name so they have it on record. Questions from the Public: None Comments from the Public:

of 19

Kent Fowden- Yes sir, Mr. Chair. Kent Fowden, Utah Trapper’s Association. We support the bobcat management plan as put forth by the Division. Dave Black: K, thank you. Lee Tracy: Lee Tracy, United Wildlife Cooperative. Per our predator advisor, he knows a whole lot more about this than I did and I had quite a long talk with him about what was going on. He reviewed the plan and, and approved it and based on his approval the United Wildlife Cooperative also supports the plan as presented. Dave Black: Okay, thank you Lee. That’s all the comment cards on this item. Do we have any comments from the RAC? Okay, I would entertain a motion. RAC discussion and vote: Wade Heaton: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve the Bobcat Management Plan as presented. Dave black: Okay thank you, do we have a second? Okay, we have a second. Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor. Looks unanimous. Wade Heaton made the motion to accept the Bobcat Management Plan as presented. Nick Jorgensen seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-17 (action) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator (see attachment 1) Questions from the RAC: Dave Black: Okay, any questions from the RAC? None Dave Black: Any questions from the public? It looks like we have, oh, Lee. Please state your name Lee. Questions from the Public: Lee Tracy: Lee Tracy. I am not familiar with any of this, you know the trapping and those kind of things and predators, I don’t participate much in any of that. But, and this may be a, a foolish question in your minds but I remember, was it last year or the year before when they were talking about changing the time of between checking your trap and, and that sort of thing. Has that impacted the harvest at all or, or anything? Cause once, once an animal is caught of course you can’t catch another one but is that, has that had any effect when they have to check their traps a little earlier or more often? Leslie McFarlane: We haven’t made a change to that, there were some requests to change that to lengthen the check time but we have not made any changes to that at all so on a lethal set you have to

of 19

check it every 48 hours and on a non-lethal set every 96 hours and that has not been changed and we aren’t recommending that. Dave Black: Okay, thank you. Did you have a question Brian? Brian Johnson (Off mic) Leslie McFarlane: I said it wrong. Sorry. Sorry. There is so much going through my mind I can’t. Dave Black: Okay, we do have 2 comment cards on this item as well. We have Kent and Lee again. Kent you can go first. Comments from the Public: Kent Fowden: Mr. Chair, Kent Fowden, Utah Trappers Association, we support the recommendations as set forth by the Division. Lee Tracy: Lee Tracy, United Wildlife Cooperative, we also support the plan as presented, or the proposal as presented. RAC discussion and vote: Dave Black: Okay do we have any comments from the RAC? Brian? Brian Johnson: Do we want to talk about changing that checking your traps? I was just wondering if anybody brought that up to you guys or not. It’s always something people talk to me about but I think we’re good if you guys are good. Dave Black: K, yeah I haven’t had any comments on it. Okay, I’m ready to entertain a motion. Mike? Mike Worthen: Mr. Chairman I move that we accept the Fur Bearing Bobcat Recommendations as presented. Dave Black: Okay, do we have a second. Okay, Brian second. Any discussion? All those in favor. Okay, unanimous. Let’s move on to #8. Mike Worthen made the motion to accept the Furbearer and Bobcat Harvest Recommendations for 2016-17 as presented. Brian Johnson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-17 (action) -Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Coordinator (see attachment 1) Questions from the RAC: Dave Black: Thank you Leslie. Do we have any? questions from the RAC? Nick.

of 19

Nick Jorgenson: Leslie you may have mentioned this and I, I couldn’t hear it but what is, what do you estimate the total population of cougars in Utah to be and what percentage of that would be male versus female? Leslie McFarlane: We do not have a population estimate for cougars in the state. In order to do that we’d have to be able to do things like fly them and all of that. So what we have substituted that with are the biological measures that we get from our hunting season. So we look at age and female structure in our harvest and that’s how we kind of measure what we are doing. Nick Jorgenson: Alright thank you. Dave Black: Craig. Craig Laub: Is depredation, the conflict with livestock, is that numbers up or down or where, where is that going? Leslie McFarlane: It was up a little bit this year. It was from 34 incidents that were reported last year to 61 this year. For, Craig Laub: That’s not a little bit. Leslie McFarlane: It’s a little bit and what we paid, what we paid this year, so we paid a total of a $148,000 this year for both cougar and bear depredation on livestock. This year we paid $68,550 on cougar depredation. Last year it was $44,000. So we have seen an increase in livestock depredation and so that’s part of the reason that we wanted to increase on some of these areas to try and reduce that. Brian Johnson: What’s an incident? Leslie McFarlane: An incident is any time a sheep, a cow or a calf are killed, or a goat. And in one case down here it was some turkeys and some cats. Brian Johnson: So any livestock that gets killed? Leslie McFarlane: Yeah. Dave Black: Any other questions? Mike. Mike Worthen: Leslie, and I don’t know how long you have been doing this, working with Wildlife Services and identifying those livestock depredation areas and does the division issue more permits in those areas or just suggest people hunt in those areas and how successful has that been? Leslie McFarlane: We can do a couple of things. Right now what we are trying to do is increase for the entire unit but what happens is if we have an incident reported, Wildlife Services is contacted and they can, they can be authorized. If that isn’t working our regional offices can also issue a depredation permit and we can send a hunter out. Or we can use hunters that haven’t harvested if it’s during a current hunting season we can pull some of the hunters that haven’t harvested and get them in the area and try to remove the animal. Those are some of the ways we directly try to tackle depredation issues but just

of 19

issuing more permits doesn’t always get to the root of the problem so anytime we have a specific issue we try to go after that specific animal. Mike Worthen: Do you have I guess records or information where you’ve got a perpetual problem maybe year after year an old tom anytime sheep or cows move in there he starts killing them and hasn’t been successful do you have situations like that to where you do try and target a specific areas? Leslie McFarlane: Yeah, so in our Cougar rule, actually and actually I brought this around when I did the plan we changed some of the law to allow any time a sheep owner a livestock owner goes into a place where they demonstrate a chronic problem with cougars, every single year, no matter if they turn out or not they will have a problem, we can issue them a permit and they can go in either before they put their livestock in or they can work on it while they’ve got their livestock in there. That permit is regularly used by a sheep person up in the Northern Region. Mike Worthen: K. Dave Black: Wade. Wade Heaton: Leslie, so on the livestock incidents, looks like there were 24 more this year than last year but we only killed 4 or 5 more of those, why the reason and the difference? Is it just difficult to target them or is it a Wildlife Services, just not enough manpower? Leslie McFarlane: That was the thing, there was a little bit of an error on that livestock table because when I met with them at the woolgrowers meeting yesterday they actually gave me 12 more that they removed so they removed 24. Last year they only removed 8 so there is quite a bit higher harvest on their part this past year. Part of it depends on when they are contacted by the livestock owner and how long the carcass has been there and whether or not they can try and attempt to remove the animal. Wade Heaton: Sure, what’s the policy. Are we trying to get rid of every one that causes the incident? Leslie McFarlane: It depends, in some parts especially on the Wasatch where we have multiple bears coming into an area they will sit and trap in that area until they can remove everything that comes in. So it just depends on the type of incident. Dave Black: Craig. Craig Laub: My question now deals with, if there is more livestock incidents and is our deer population suffering because of the, there is obviously more cats out there if there is more incidents of conflict. Leslie McFarlane: So that’s part of the reason why when we did the cougar plan we started considering our deer population objectives as part of whether or not we put a unit under predator management and then whether or not we put it under predator management determines whether or not we increase permits. So if you go here, say on the Box Elder desert, that deer population and the big horn sheep population there put that in predator management. So we increased permits to try and get at least 40% of our harvest being females. And so yeah, we do look at our deer population when we are considering these.

of 19

Dave Black: Do we have any other questions? Brian? Brian Johnson: I get that I don’t have all the answers, but, I, I say that now instead of saying that I’m dumb. That’s what Sam taught me. But, why are we lowering the number of permits on the Zion? Leslie McFarlane: I will let the region address that. Part, well, I will let Dustin, but the other thing you have to look at when you look at the Zion is Zion predator management and your female harvest is at 41%, so. Brian Johnson: (Off mic). Leslie McFarlane.: We want to keep it below 40. On, non-predator management units. But Dustin, Dustin can, Dustin Schaible: Yeah she eluded to it already that we’re over 40% on female harvest and we’re under our age objective there and then all of our big game populations are over objective on that unit. Dave Black: Do we have any questions from the audience? Remember to state your name John. Questions from the Public: John Keeler: Utah Farm Bureau, I am just wondering why there is no numbers for cougars in the state. Isn’t there modeling that is done? I remember back in the 90’s when there was such a large number in the population and they had modeled numbers that were using then. And I was just wondering why there isn’t some kind of a figure because there is on practically everything else. And then the question why is there a decrease in the Beaver Unit. Leslie McFarlane: Okay so first on why, so we do have modelled numbers on cougar populations. It’s probably between 1900 to 4000. That’s as close as I can get you with the model. And the reason that we don’t have more tight numbers is because we can’t survey cougars like we can big game animals. We can’t get flights out there and count a percentage of the population to then put that into a model and say this is your sight ability index and give you some level of confidence. Any time we do that our confidence intervals are like this. And so we can have anywhere between 1900 to 4000 cougars in the state. And that’s about as close, I mean I know what you are talking about, in the 1990, in the 1990’s in the plan, it was mentioned in the plan, but, we don’t have any tighter number than that. John Keeler: (off mic) Are there any, any units where there is ground truthing that is done so that you can at least, (inaudible). Leslie McFarlane: So the closest, the closest that we could do that on and that is one of the things that we are trying to look at with the research project is to get some collars maybe throughout the state so that we can kind of ground truth our numbers but it’s a very expensive time consuming project to go in and try and cougar, or collar that many cougars across the state. The closest we can get you would be on our 2 units where we’ve had long term cougar population studies and that would be on the Oakers and the Monroe. And they kind of, can tell us that our estimates that we use in our cougar plan for age, class and sex are pretty similar to, to what you see statewide. So that’s, I mean that’s as close as I can get you.

of 19

John Keeler: Is there any private research or University research that’s being done anywhere? Leslie McFarlane: To do what? John Keeler: On population numbers. Leslie McFarlane: That’s as close as any state can get you because there is no way to go, I mean we’re working on it, we’ve done research on them forever. But that’s as close as we can get you to an actual population estimate. That’s why we use age data and sex in our harvest because that tells us what the population is doing in response to removal by hunters. Dave Black: Thank you. We do have some comment cards. Leslie McFarlane: The Beaver. Dave Black: Oh, sorry. Dave Smedley: So the Beaver was decreased, basically we were just following the management plan and the percent of female, or percent under five years old was below where we want that fifteen or eighteen to twenty percent, it was at twelve percent, so the age is a little younger. Dave Black: K, we do have comment cards from the audience. The first one is Darren West and then Lee Tracy and then we have two letters that we’d like to read in the minutes as well. Comments from the Public: Darren West: Mr. Chairman, RAC, gentlemen, I’m Darren West with the Mule Deer Foundation. I’m the Conservation Coordinator for Utah. I am here responding to several emails and phone calls I have received from sportsmen in the Wayne and Garfield County areas signaling a large increase in sightings of cougars this year over last as well as with what we have heard tonight with depredation numbers and highway mortality also on the rise as well as a low increase in deer populations over the last three years with the mild winters we’ve had, we would recommend an increase in permits for the Plateau Thousand Lake, Fish lake and Plateau Boulder units by 30%... I would ask that the RAC would entertain a motion for this increase. Thank you. Dave Black: Thank you. Lee Tracy: United Wildlife Cooperative, our predator advisor was on the cougar management plan and he so, I talked to him a little bit about how close we are to that plan and he believes we are right on so the United Wildlife Cooperative supports the plan as presented. Dave Black: K, thank you Lee. Layne Torgerson: We did receive a letter from the Utah Houndsman Association (Read letter to mic, this will be attachment 2).

of 19

We also have letter from SFW. (Read letter to mic, see Attachment 3) Dave Black: Okay, thank you, Darren let me just ask you real quick, make sure I get this right in my notes. There is the Plateau Thousand Lakes Unit, and the Plateau Fish Lake, was there any others? Unknown subject off mic: Did you mention the Plateau Boulder? Dave Black: And the Plateau Boulder, so there is three? Darren West: Yes sir. Dave Black: That’s all the comment cards. It looks like we have one more coming up. Thank you. John Keeler: Utah Farm Bureau, we too would like to support an increase in the Southwest Manti, the Plateau and Boulder. We have received comments from producers of increased sightings and increased activity and incidents there so we would favor an increase there. Dave Black: K, thank you John. K, that’s it from the audience, do we have comments from the RAC? Mike. RAC discussion and vote: Mike Worthen: Let me see if I got this right, in those three units that Darren mentioned, there is 26 permits sold in there, and so the 30% increase that he is asking would be about 8, close to 8 permits increase? Is, is my math right? Leslie McFarlane: Well one of those, one of those units is already recommended as an increase by the region as well so is that on top of what the region is already recommending? Dave Black: Darren, I guess I would go to you. Unknown subject: Fish lake Plateau by 1. Darren West: Yes, the numbers would stay the same as the Plateau Fish lake is only increased by 1. Dave Black: Okay. Craig? Craig Laub: Just had a question. I just, what’s the success rate on those, on these units, particularly these ones we’re talking about, well I’m also interested in the Pine Valley and the Southwest Desert. Leslie McFarlane: Okay, so one thing I do want to point out on the Plateau Thousand Lake is that one is right at 40% on its females. It is not under for predator management so the region should be recommending a decrease there and they did not. So, an increase there would be going against the plan. On the Plateau Fish Lake, the region did recommend an increase of 1 and on the Plateau Boulder the region recommended to stay the same. On the harvest, the Fish Lake, total harvest it was a 100% success, the Thousand Lake is 50% success, and on the Boulder we exceeded the harvest last year, it was over harvested. And then the Pine Valley, Wildlife Services helped remove some animals there. So

of 19

Pine Valley the success was 10 out of 12. Southwest Desert 7 out of 9. So that’s the other thing you have to look at too is some of these units you can put more permits on there and if you, success, I mean like Southwest Desert is one that’s really hard. Any of our West desert units we have a hard time getting hunters into those to harvest. Dave Black: K, thank you. Any further comments from the RAC? Okay, I just want to summarize again if we get this right. So the Mule Deer Foundation which is supported by the Farm Bureau would support an increase by 30% on the Plateau units, those 3, Boulders, Thousand Lakes, Fish Lake. And then also there was a recommendation by SFW to increase the Manti unit which is also supported by the Farm Bureau from 5 tags to 8 so I believe that’s, and then the other letters and comments that we’ve received have basically been in support of the plan as presented. I’m ready for a motion. Rusty Aiken: Chairman I’d like to make a motion on the cougar recommendations as recommended by the Division with the exception of a 30% increase on the Thousand Lake, the Fish Lake and the Boulder and the Southwest Manti. Dave Black: So, let me just ask you a quick question, on the Southwest Manti unit the increase was from, the recommendation was from 5 to 8 and not a 30% increase, do you want to, is your motion 30% for all those units? Rusty Aiken: Umm. Just to get it up to the 8 that they recommended. Dave Black: Is that 30%? Okay do you want to restate your motion then for us? Rusty Aiken: Okay so a 30% increase on the Thousand Lake, Fish Lake and Boulder Plateaus and 3 permits on the Southwest Manti. Dave Black: Okay that is an increase from 5 to 8? Rusty Aiken: Correct. Dave Black: Okay, do we have a second on that motion? We have a second from Wade. Okay, is there any discussion on the motion? Brian? Brian Johnson: Just clarification, you did include the Plateau Thousand Lakes that is at 40% female harvest? Rusty Aiken: Yes Dave Black: Yes, that was included. Which according to Leslie goes against the plan. Brian Johnson: That’s, that’s just what I was going to go with, that just, I, we put a lot of work into those plans and I am all about killing cats but do we want to think about that before we send it off I mean let’s discuss it any way so they know it just wasn’t just a raise our hand and went to it, so. Dave Black: Ok, Wade

of 19

Wade Heaton: And, and I kind of agree with Brian. We talked about this a lot last year. It doesn’t make any sense to throw more permits at units where we’re not reaching the quota anyway, which we’re not on the Thousand Lakes. Rusty, what’s your thoughts about amending that motion and excluding the Thousand Lakes leaving the other 3? Rusty Aiken: Okay, I will amend the motion and exclude the Thousand Lakes. Wade Heaton: Second. Dave Black: Okay, now is there any discussion on the amendment? Okay so we need to, Leslie McFarlane: Let me ask one question. So your motion was to increase, so that would leave the Plateau Boulder and the Plateau Fish Lake, so increase those 2 units by 30% so on top of the one that we recommended? Vote on amendment, 8 in favor, 1 opposed (Nick Jorgenson). Amendment passes. Dave Black: Yes, thank you. Okay, let’s have a, a vote on the amendment, k? You got that count? So the motion carries. So the amendment passes. Let’s, well lets I think we still need to, we had changed the original motion so now let’s vote on the motion, I guess since we had an amendment we still need to follow through and vote on the motion. Is there any further discussion on the motion? So we can restate it. Wade? Wade Heaton: Okay so the motion reads right now that we pass the Division’s proposal with 3 exceptions. First being the Plateau Boulder is increased by 30%, second that Plateau Fish lake is increased by 30% and third Southwest Manti is increased by, from, from 5 to 8. Dave Black: Okay, thank you. 8:1 Nick Jorgenson opposed. All those in favor. All those opposed. Thank you. Motion carries. Okay, we have. Rusty Aiken made the motion to accept the Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2016-17 as presented with the exceptions to increase the permits on the Plateau Boulder, Thousand Lakes and Fish lake units by 30% and permits on the Southwest Manti to 8 permits. Wade Heaton seconded. Rusty Aiken made an amendment to exclude the Thousand Lakes from that increase. Wade seconded the amended motion. Amendment passed 8:1 (Nick Jorgenson) opposed). Amended Motion passed 8:1 (Nick Jorgenson opposed) Proposed Fee Schedule (action) -Kenny Johnson, Administrative Section Chief (see attachment 1) Questions from the RAC: Dave Black: K, thank you Kenny. Do we have any questions from the RAC? Mack? Mack Morrell: Tell me how this elk, antlerless elk mitigation tag works.

of 19

Kenny Johnson: So those are, those are opportunities that land owners provide, hunting opportunities on, on places where people can’t really access or don’t have as much access, but we still need to have elk removed. So right now they are paying the full fifty dollars and it’s kind of a similar, a similar concept to kind of the antlerless control permits that sell over the counter, at more that thirty dollar price point. So that’s how those, that’s how those work. Dave Black: K, Craig? Craig Laub: I am just curious on this I guess and this is just a proposal on the resident elk multi season, that’s not something that’s going on now, that’s something that just may come, we may go to some time? Kenny Johnson: Correct, yeah it doesn’t exist now, we want to just establish the fee. I think the idea had some pretty good excitement and support through the committee so it’s an idea that we’re behind we just, we don’t have any of the details flushed out, we just want to get the fee on the books. Craig Laub: So, if I buy a regular spike tag I could buy, pay a little bit more and get a multi season spike tag then? Kenny Johnson: That’s kind of the idea, yeah. Dave Black: Any questions down this way? Do we have any questions from the audience? Lee? Questions from the Public: Lee Tracy: I have a couple of questions, this elk, the multi season elk permit sounds a little bit like a dedicated hunters. Are there going to be any changes to that. Is that a one year deal or a three year deal or would there be any changes to that? Layne Torgerson: Lee, I was on the elk committee when we, on the elk plan committee. This was a topic that came up and we talked about it extensively for like two or three meetings. Of just one of the biggest things we had, one of our objectives of that committee was to create more opportunity for the, for the general public because our elk numbers are up and this was just an idea that was thrown out in the elk plan through that committee as a way to offer more opportunity to the public. It’s not in place at this time but it is in the plan to, to go to sometime the way I understand it. I think if I, Kenny you can correct me if I’m wrong but? Kenny Johnson: No, I think that’s right on, so. Lee Tracy: Alright. Now you mentioned specifically recruiting youth to that, to the turkey hunt. I’m assuming that reduction is for everybody not just the youth, is that right? Kenny Johnson: Right now we are proposing it just for youth, for the general season hunters. Yep so not across the board, just for youth. Lee Tracy: Alright thanks.

of 19

Dave Black: Good questions, thank you for the clarifications. We don’t have any comment cards on this. Do we have any comments from the RAC? Wade? Comments from the Public: None RAC discussion and vote: Wade Heaton: I think these are some great changes. I especially like that youth general turkey permit reduction and I especially liked the picture in the multi season deer slide. Kenny Johnson: You’re welcome. Dave Black: K, any other comments? Gene? Gene Boardman: On this elk thing, I am all for increasing opportunity. I am a little concerned about how much this is going to stress elk. How many hunters are going to be out there pushing from what, the archery season starts in early September and they’d be able to push through the muzzle loader season that goes into November. Kenny Johnson: So the idea is they just, they wouldn’t hunt continuously from archery through the end of muzzleloader, just those actual seasons. So they would be participating with everybody else but not in between. Gene Boardman: Right. But that’s still, has the amount of stress that it would put on the elk been considered in making this a plan? Kenny Johnson: I appreciate that Gene, it’s one of those things that we would have to put in a proposal that will come back out and flush out the details. We haven’t worked through them at this point. Tonight is just getting the fee ready. And then at some future point we’ll have a, we’ll have a little more details filled in about how that’s gonna work and potentially look but I’m sure that will be considered. Gene Boardman: Okay, we want to see increased opportunity, we just don’t want to see too much of it. Dave Black: I didn’t think I would hear that from you Gene. That’s good. Okay, if there is not further comments I’ll entertain a motion. Nick Jorgensen: I would like to move that we approve the purposed fee schedule. From Kenny Johnson, I guess. Dave Black: Okay, as presented. Okay, do we have a second? Okay we have a motion to second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor. Okay, motion carries unanimous. Nick Jorgensen made the motion to accept the Proposed Fee Schedule as presented. Brian Johnson seconded. Motion carried unanimously.

of 19

Other Business -Dave Black, Chairman Dave Black: That’s our last agenda item. Looks like our next meeting will be on Sept 13th at 7 pm at the Sevier School District Office and that will be the fishing recommendations and guidebook. Unless Gary has anything to add we’ll call this meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

1

Internal Audit of the 2016 Expo Permit Program

Dated August 18, 2016

Background

Under the 2012 – 2016 contract to distribute Expo permits, the Mule Deer Foundation

(MDF) distributes the permits in partnership with Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) at the

Western Hunting and Conservation Expo. This report covers the 2016 performance specifically,

and uses historical data from the outset of the Expo permit program in 2007 through 2016 for

some comparative items. The 2016 Expo permits were the last Expo permits distributed under

MDF’s 5 year contract. Expo permits for 2017 – 2021 will be distributed by Sportsmen for Fish

and Wildlife (SFW) in partnership with MDF and Utah Foundation for North American Wild

Sheep (FNAWS) under terms of a new contract.

The Western Hunting and Conservation Expo was held in Salt Lake City February 11-14,

2016. In accordance with R657-55, an annual audit of the Expo permit program has been

conducted in 2016. This audit was not performed using generally accepted auditing standards,

but is an internal audit designed by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Administrative

Services Section to ensure compliance with applicable rules and contractual obligations.

Overview

The focus of this audit is to assist the Division and the Wildlife Board to ensure contract

compliance. Our report focuses on verifying that data is protected and secure, and that the

drawing procedure used is random for the permits being issued. Additionally, we reviewed data

regarding the number of applicants, success rates, and programming code related to drawing

procedures and issuance of permits. We also reviewed revenue amounts retained by the

contractor for administrative expenses and use on Division-approved projects. We look to verify

retained revenue totals, and that the funds designated for projects are kept separate from other

funds in an insured bank account.

As authorized in rule we verify that the designated portion of application fees collected is

either spent on, or committed to, Division-approved projects within 2 years of being collected.

This review will consider retained project fees from 2014 to ensure they were spent or

committed to Division-approved projects within the time allotted by Administrative Rule

(September 1, 2016 specifically).

Findings

The Division monitored the processes of data collection and input, securing of personal

and confidential data received, and performance of the actual draw process. Security of data is of

utmost importance to the Division, as state government hack attempts have grown from 2 million

attempts per day 10 years ago, to 110 million attempts per day currently. There were no findings

with the data handling in 2016. We also reviewed the programming code used to perform the

draw to ensure the integrity of the process; there were no findings with the code in 2016.

Additionally, the Division has performed eligibility checks of successful applicants and

alternates that may have been assigned a permit. No eligibility issues were identified in 2016.

2

This audit verified application revenue retained by the contractor, as well as permit

revenue payable to the Division from each successful applicant prior to issuance of the permit.

There were no compliance issues in 2016.

This audit includes an in-depth report of project revenue and expenditures of funds

collected beginning in 2013, explaining findings regarding total revenue collected specifically

for projects, as well as reporting the total amount of money spent and committed to Division-

approved projects as mandated by rule. Project revenue from 2013 and 2014 was reviewed,

project invoices paid with Expo dollars were tallied and project coversheets signed by the

Division Director were compiled to obtain the total of application revenue spent on Division-

approved projects and the total dollars committed to Division-approved projects. Both MDF and

SFW had expended or committed all required 2013 and 2014 revenue and are in compliance with

rule and agreements with the Division. Project revenue must be expended or committed to

Division-approved projects by September 1, two years following the year it was collected.

Review of handling personal and sensitive data

The Division considers the handling of personal data and information a top priority.

Because the contractor conducting the draw is allowed limited access to DWR data for

populating the hunt applications, we require adherence to protocols that will safeguard this data.

The contractor has two process components regarding sensitive and confidential data from

the applicants. For these purposes sensitive and confidential data is defined as social security

number, driver’s license information, height, weight, gender, and hair/eye color.

First is the handling of sensitive information given by applicants at the Expo to apply in

the drawing manually. This is done on a paper form completed by the applicant. Once

completed and submitted, these forms are cross-shredded on site. No paper applications are

retained by the contractor.

Second is the handling of electronic data that is used in the electronic application process.

Sensitive data is used by the application for customer lookups into the Division database. This

data transmission is through a secure socket layer using 128 bit encryption. Once the customer

information is retrieved no sensitive information is stored in the contractor database.

No compliance issues were identified by the Division in 2016.

Review of the drawing process

Division of Wildlife/Department of Technology Services personnel go through an

extensive review of the draw processes used by GraySky Technologies, the subcontractor

selected by MDF to conduct the Expo permit drawing. The Division is represented by technical

experts from the Utah Department of Technology Services, who reviewed the following:

1) The process of the draw is reviewed for its soundness.

2) The database structure is reviewed to make sure that a customer can’t flood a certain hunt by

making multiple entries for that hunt.

3

3) A review of the code is conducted to make sure that there is no chance that a seeded record

could exist in the database prior to the assignment of random numbers. This is done to

ensure that the result table is empty and no records can be inserted independently of the

drawing code. This ensures that a record with an abnormally low random number isn’t

placed in the table thereby guaranteeing a permit to that record.

4) The code is reviewed to ensure that all records are treated equally in the process that assigns

random numbers to the entries. Care is given to make sure that when the random numbers

are being assigned, no records are identified to get a number other than a random number

which is generated by the system.

5) The code is then reviewed for inserts that may occur after the drawing to make sure that a

secured opportunity record is not placed in the result table after the assignment of random

numbers takes place.

This was an exhaustive and thorough review; no compliance issues were identified by

the Division in 2016.

Conducting the Draw

The actual drawing was conducted at the Division Office in Salt Lake City on February

16, 2016. Attendees included Division staff, representatives from the Mule Deer Foundation,

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and the general public. The public is welcome to attend the

drawing and at least 3 individuals unrelated to the Division or contractors were in attendance.

The draw is then conducted by GraySky Technologies whereupon the following occurred:

1) An impromptu passphrase was given to the GraySky representative and was witnessed

written into the code prior to beginning the draw process. Later this same passphrase was

verified by all in attendance to display on the result page to ensure the code reviewed by the

Division was the actual code used during the draw.

2) The draw was then run assigning random numbers to applicants hunt choice entries and then

sorted in descending order.

3) The results of the draw were printed and immediately given to a Division representative to

ensure that there were no edits to the results table.

4) This list was then given to the Division Law Enforcement and Licensing sections to validate

eligibility before any results were posted.

5) Any applicants selected through the draw that receive multiple permits for the same species

are contacted by the Division and asked to select their preferred hunt choice. The unclaimed

permits are issued to alternates.

The passphrase was witnessed being added to the code, and the same passphrase

verified at the conclusion of the draw. Results were instantly printed and the process to

validate began immediately.

No compliance issues were identified by the Division.

4

Note about Random Drawings

In any truly random drawing there always seems to be a few “lucky” individuals.

Statistically when randomness is discussed it is always possible to view the final result and pick

out certain trends. The key to these trends is that they cannot be predicted prior to the event or

drawing. This is the very essence of randomness. Random is not an assurance that an event will

be spread evenly across a population, or distributed equally among participants. There were no

abnormalities observed in the 2016 drawing.

Draw Related Information

The Division reviewed data from the Expo regarding application numbers and success

rates of the Expo. Applicant numbers verified that at least 10,000 individuals attended the Expo

again in 2016 as required by rule. The reported number of attendees at the 2016 Expo was

40,927, including more than 10,000 being formally registered for activities.

Applicant data for years 2007-2016 is as follows:

Year Applicants Applications Resident Nonresident

Gross Revenue@$5 per app

2007 10,527 205,462 163,054 42,408 $ 1,027,310

2008 8,745 138,988 116,465 22,523 $ 694,940

2009 9,927 169,988 139,748 29,375 $ 845,970

2010 9,700 165,866 139,920 25,946 $ 847,285

2011 12,154 196,360 170,539 25,821 $ 981,800

2012 13,388 207,870 179,077 28,793 $ 1,039,350

2013 14,043 197,312 173,192 24,120 $ 986,560

2014 14,148 206,506 178,250 28,256 $ 1,032,530

2015 14,910 228,530 192,420 36,110 $ 1,142,650

2016 15,507 233,210 195,973 37,237 $ 1,166,050

Resident versus Nonresident Success

Data was reviewed comparing the number of resident applicants versus the nonresident

applicants. Very similar to last year, in the 2016 application period: 84% of the applications for

the 200 permit series were residents with 16% nonresidents. 173 permits drawn were awarded to

residents, which is 86.5% of the total permits available, and 27 to nonresidents, or 13.5% of the

total permits available. There were no anomalies in this data in 2016.

5

License Sales

The Division requires that anyone applying for a permit at the Expo have a valid hunting

or combination license at the time of application. To ensure this compliance the programming

will not allow applicants to apply without a valid license in the system. For the Expo in 2016

there were 746 combination and hunting licenses sold on site. The resulting license revenue

generated was $33,993.00. The entirety of these funds are owed to the Division with the same

reporting stipulations as other third party license vendors; the invoice was paid in full on time.

There were no compliance issues with license sales, reporting, or payment.

Application Revenue

In 2016 the Expo accepted applications beginning in October continuing through the end of

the Expo held February 11–14; the draw processed 233,210 applications, generating $1,166,050

in gross application revenue. The retained portion allowable for administrative expenses was

$3.50 per application, or $816,235.00; this revenue was split 50/50 between the MDF and SFW,

with each receiving $408,117.50.

There were no compliance issues with application revenue.

Project Revenue

The amount of project revenue dedicated to Division-approved projects has changed from

year to year; for 2016 it was $1.50 per application. The $1.50 per application dedicated to

Division-approved projects totaled $349,815.00. This revenue was split 50/50 between The

Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and wildlife, each receiving $174,907.50. This

balance was verified in a federally insured bank account and held separate from other funds for

both MDF and SFW. These funds will need to be spent on, or committed to, Division-approved

projects by Sept 1, 2018.

To verify MDF and SFW met their obligations as of Sept 1, 2016, we reviewed project

revenue balances from 2013 and 2014. Project invoices paid with Expo dollars were tallied and

project coversheets signed by the Division Director (indicating an official commitment) were

compiled to obtain the total of project revenue spent on Division-approved projects; as well as

the total dollars committed to Division-approved projects.

MDF and SFW were each required to spend or commit $390,946.75 by September 1,

2016. Each organization easily met this obligation.

6

Revenue Required to be Committed or Expended by September 1, 2016

Org.

Project Revenue

2013

Project Revenue

2014

Project Revenue

2015

Project Revenue

2016 Total Project Revenue

Obligation Due Sept 1,

2016

Total Currently

Committed or Spent

MDF $185,473.28 $205,473.47 $194,250.50

$174,907.50 $760,104.75 $390,946.75 $803,782.58

SFW $185,473.28 $205,473.47 $194,250.50

$174,907.50 $760,104.75 $390,946.75 $668,827.34

Total $370,946.56 $410,946.94 $388,501.00

$349,815.00 $1,520,209.50 $781,893.50 $1,472,609.92

There were no compliance issues with project revenue.

More detail can be found in attachment 2. (project list)

Draw Probability Statistics

The Expo offers a limited number of permits annually and attracts exponentially more

applicants who compete for them through a secure and random draw process. It should be noted

that this dynamic implies a statistically low probability of obtaining a permit. While the draw

odds are not a controllable variable or concern of the Division, we want to acknowledge the

expediency with which this information is made available to the public. The Expo contractor

publishes these statistics annually on their website prior to the next year application period.

7

Conclusions

We want to acknowledge that with data being under constant threat, the need to create

processes and systems that are up to the challenge of securing information has never been higher.

This review was directed at processes involved in the careful handling of applications and data.

We believe that with the procedures set in place by MDF, SFW, and GraySky, that the data was

properly secured at the Expo, and the drawing was conducted in a random, transparent, and

consistent manner.

Project revenue from 2016 was verified and accounted for in the prescribed manner, and

kept separate from other account funds in federally insured bank accounts. Project revenue

collected in 2013 and 2014 for Division-approved projects was committed and expended prior to

the September 1 deadline.

We would like to thank the Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife

for their time, prompt response and their willingness to provide the information requested for the

preparation of the audit. Their information was clearly presented and very much appreciated. If

there are questions regarding this report, please contact me at 801-550-8349.

Kenneth Johnson

Administrative Services Chief

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

CC: Gregory Sheehan, Director

John Bair, Board Chair

Kirk Woodward, Board Vice Chair

Utah Wildlife Board Members

Miles Moretti, Mule Deer Foundation

Troy Justensen, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife

ATCH:

1. Current Expo Rule R647-55

2. Project List

3. Draw Process Roll Sheet

Attachment 1

R657. Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources. R657-55. Wildlife Expo Permits. R657-55-1. Purpose and Authority.

(1) Under the authority of Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 of the Utah Code, this rule provides the standards and requirements for issuing wildlife expo permits.

(2) Wildlife expo permits are authorized by the Wildlife Board and issued by the division to a qualified conservation organization for purposes of generating revenue to fund wildlife conservation activities in Utah and attracting and supporting a regional or national wildlife exposition in Utah.

(3) The selected conservation organization will conduct a random drawing at an exposition held in Utah to distribute the opportunity to receive wildlife expo permits.

(4) This rule is intended as authorization to issue one series of wildlife expo permits per year to one qualified conservation organization.

R657-55-2. Definitions.

(1) Terms used in this rule are defined in Section 23-13-2. (2) In addition: (a) "Conservation organization" means a nonprofit chartered institution,

corporation, foundation, or association founded for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation.

(b) “Special nonresident expo permit” means one wildlife expo permit for each once-in-a-lifetime species that is only available to a nonresident hunter legally eligible to hunt in Utah.

(c) "Wildlife exposition" means a multi-day event held within the state of Utah that is sponsored by one or more wildlife conservation organizations as their national or regional convention or event that is open to the general public and designed to draw nationwide attendance of more than 10,000 individuals. The wildlife exposition may include wildlife conservation fund raising activities, outdoor exhibits, retail marketing of outdoor products and services, public awareness programs, and other similar activities.

(d) “Wildlife exposition audit” means an annual review by the division of the conservation organization’s processes used to handle applications for expo permits and conduct the drawing, the protocols associated with collecting and using client data, the revenue generated from expo permit application fees, and the expenditure of designated expo permit application fee revenue on division-approved projects.

(e) "Wildlife expo permit" means a permit which: (i) is authorized by the Wildlife Board to be issued to successful applicants

through a drawing or random selection process conducted at a Utah wildlife exposition; and

(ii) allows the permittee to hunt the designated species on the designated unit during the respective season for each species as authorized by the Wildlife Board.

(f) "Wildlife expo permit series" means a single package of permits to be determined by the Wildlife Board for:

(i) deer; (ii) elk;

(iii) pronghorn; (iv) moose; (v) bison; (vi) rocky mountain goat; (vii) desert bighorn sheep; (viii) rocky mountain bighorn sheep; (ix) wild turkey; (x) cougar; or (xi) black bear. (g) "Secured opportunity” means the opportunity to receive a specified

wildlife expo permit that is secured by an eligible applicant through the exposition drawing process.

(h) “Successful applicant” means an individual selected to receive a wildlife expo permit through the drawing process.

R657-55-3. Wildlife Expo Permit Allocation.

(1) The Wildlife Board may allocate wildlife expo permits by May 1 of the year preceding the wildlife exposition.

(2) Wildlife expo permits shall be issued as a single series to one conservation organization.

(3) The number of wildlife expo permits authorized by the Wildlife Board shall be based on:

(a) the species population trend, size, and distribution to protect the long-term health of the population;

(b) the hunting and viewing opportunity for the general public, both short and long term; and

(c) a percentage of the permits available to nonresidents in the annual big game drawings matched by a proportionate number of resident permits.

(4) Wildlife expo permits, including special nonresident expo permits, shall not exceed 200 total permits.

(5) Wildlife expo permits designated for the exposition each year shall be deducted from the number of public drawing permits.

R657-55-4. Obtaining Authority to Distribute Wildlife Expo Permit Series.

(1)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), the wildlife expo permit series is issued for a period of five years.

(b) For expo contracts governing the 2017 expo, and all expo contracts thereafter, the original five year term may be extended an additional period not to exceed five years, so long as:

(i) the division and conservation organization mutually agree in writing to an extension; and

(ii) the contract extension is approved by the Wildlife Board. (2) The wildlife expo permit series is available to eligible conservation

organizations for distribution through a drawing or other random selection process held at a wildlife exposition in Utah open to the public.

(3) Conservation organizations may apply for the wildlife expo permit series by sending an application to the division between August 1 and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term, as provide

in R657-55-4(1). (4) Each application must include: (a) the name, address and telephone number of the conservation

organization; (b) a description of the conservation organization's mission statement; (c) the name of the president or other individual responsible for the

administrative operations of the conservation organization; and (d) a detailed business plan describing how the wildlife exposition will take

place and how the wildlife expo permit drawing procedures will be carried out. (5) An incomplete or incorrect application may be rejected. (6) The division shall recommend to the Wildlife Board which conservation

organization may receive the wildlife expo permit series based on: (a) the business plan for the wildlife exposition and drawing procedures

contained in the application; and (b) the conservation organization's, including its constituent entities, ability,

including past performance in marketing conservation permits under Rule R657-41, to effectively plan and complete the wildlife exposition.

(7) The Wildlife Board shall make the final assignment of the wildlife expo permit series based on the:

(a) division's recommendation; (b) applicant conservation organization’s commitment to use expo permit

handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah; (c) historical contribution of the applicant conservation organization,

including its constituent entities, to the conservation of wildlife in Utah; and (d) previous performance of the applicant conservation organization,

including its constituent entities. (8) The conservation organization receiving the wildlife expo permit series

must: (a) require each wildlife expo permit applicant to possess a current Utah

hunting or combination license before applying for a wildlife expo permit; (b) select successful applicants for wildlife convention permits by drawing

or other random selection process in accordance with law, provisions of this rule, proclamation, and order of the Wildlife Board;

(c) allow applicants to apply for wildlife expo permits without purchasing admission to the wildlife exposition;

(d) notify the division of the successful applicant of each wildlife expo permit within 10 days of the applicant's selection;

(e) maintain records demonstrating that the drawing was conducted fairly; and

(f) submit to an annual wildlife exposition audit by a division appointed auditor.

(9) The division shall issue the appropriate wildlife expo permit to the designated successful applicant after:

(a) completion of the random selection process; (b) verification of the recipient being eligible for the permit; and (c) payment of the appropriate permit fee is received by the division. (10) The division and the conservation organization receiving the wildlife

expo permit series shall enter into a contract, including the provisions outlined in

this rule. (11) If the conservation organization awarded the wildlife expo permit series

withdraws before the end of the 5 year period or any extension period under R657-55-4(1)(b), any remaining co-participant with the conservation organization may be given an opportunity to assume the contract and to distribute the expo permit series consistent with the contract and this rule for the remaining years in the applicable period, provided:

(a) The original contracted conservation organization submits a certified letter to the division identifying that it will no longer be participating in the exposition.

(b) The partner or successor conservation organization files an application with the division as provided in Subsection (4) for the remaining period.

(c) The successor conservation organization submits its application request at least 60 days prior to the next scheduled exposition so that the Wildlife Board can evaluate the request under the criteria in this section.

(d) The Wildlife Board authorizes the successor conservation organization to assume the contract and complete the balance of the expo permit series period.

(12) The division may suspend or terminate the conservation organization's authority to distribute wildlife expo permits at any time during the original five year award term or any extension period for:

(a) violating any of the requirements set forth in this rule or the contract; or (b) failing to bring or organize a wildlife exposition in Utah, as described in

the business plan under R657-55-4(4)(d), in any given year. R657-55-5. Wildlife Expo Permit Application Procedures.

(1) Any person legally eligible to hunt in Utah may apply for a wildlife expo permit, except that only a nonresident of Utah may apply for a special nonresident expo permit.

(2) The handling fee assessed by the conservation organization to process applications shall be $5 per application submitted.

(3)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), applicants must validate their application in person at the wildlife exposition to be eligible to participate in the wildlife expo permit drawing.

(i) No person may submit an application in behalf of another. (ii) A person may validate their wildlife expo permit application at the

exposition without having to enter the exposition and pay the admission charge. (b) An applicant that is a member of the United States Armed Forces and

unable to attend the wildlife exposition as a result of being deployed or mobilized in the interest of national defense or a national emergency is not required to validate their application in person; provided exposition administrators are furnished a copy of the written deployment or mobilization orders and the orders identify:

(i) the branch of the United States Armed forces from which the applicant is deployed or mobilized;

(ii) the location where the applicant is deployed or mobilized; (iii) the date the applicant is required to report to duty; and (iv) the nature and length of the applicant’s deployment or mobilization. (c) The conservation organization shall maintain a record, including copies

of military orders, of all applicants that are not required to validate their applications in person pursuant to Subsection (3)(b), and submit to a division audit of these

records as part of its annual audit under R657-55-4(8)(f). (4) Applicants may apply for each individual hunt for which they are eligible. (5) Applicants may apply only once for each hunt, regardless of the number of

permits for that hunt. (6) Applicants must submit an application for each desired hunt. (7) Applicants must possess a current Utah hunting or combination license in

order to apply for a wildlife expo permit. (8) The conservation organization shall advertise, accept, and process

applications for wildlife expo permits and conduct the drawing in compliance with this rule and all other applicable laws.

R657-55-6. Drawing Procedures.

(1) A random drawing or selection process must be conducted for each wildlife expo permit.

(2) Preference and bonus points are neither awarded nor applied in the drawings.

(3) Waiting periods do not apply, except any person who obtains a wildlife expo permit for a once-in-a-lifetime species is subject to the once-in-a-lifetime restrictions applicable to obtaining a subsequent permit for the same species through a division application and drawing process, as provided in Rule R657-5 and the proclamation of the Wildlife Board for taking big game.

(4) No predetermined quotas or restrictions shall be imposed in the application or selection process for wildlife expo permits between resident and nonresident applicants, except that special nonresident expo permits may only be awarded to a nonresident of Utah.

(5) Drawings will be conducted within five days of the close of the exposition. (6) Applicants do not have to be present at the drawing to be awarded a

wildlife expo permit. (7) The conservation organization shall identify all eligible alternates for

each wildlife expo permit and provide the division with a finalized list. This list will be maintained by the conservation organization until all permits are issued.

(8) The division shall contact successful applicants by phone or mail, and the conservation organization shall post the name of all successful applicants on a designated website.

R657-55-7. Issuance of Permits.

(1) The division shall provide a wildlife expo permit to the successful applicant, as designated by the conservation organization.

(2) The division must provide a wildlife expo permit to each successful applicant, except as otherwise provided in this rule.

(3) The division shall provide each successful applicant a letter indicating the permit secured in the drawing, the appropriate fee owed the division, and the date the fee is due.

(4)(a) Successful applicants must provide the permit fee payment in full to the division.

(b) Subject to the limitation in Subsection (8), the division will issue the designated wildlife expo permit to the applicant.

(5) Residents will pay resident permit fees and nonresidents will pay

nonresident permit fees. (6) Applicants are eligible to obtain only one permit per species, except as

provided in Rule R657-5, but no restrictions apply on obtaining permits for multiple species.

(7) If an applicant is selected for more than one expo permit for the same species, the division will contact the applicant to determine which permit the applicant selects.

(a) The applicant must select the permit of choice within five days of receiving notification.

(b) If the division is unable to contact the applicant within 5 days, the division will issue to the applicant the permit with the most difficult drawings odds based on drawing results from the division’s big game drawing for the preceding year.

(c) Permits not issued to the applicant will go to the next person on the alternate drawing list for that permit.

(8) Any successful applicant who fails to satisfy the following requirements will be ineligible to receive the wildlife expo permit and the next drawing alternate for that permit will be selected:

(a) The applicant fails to return the appropriate permit fee in full by the date provided in Subsection (3);

(b) The applicant does not possess a valid Utah hunting or combination license at the time the expo permit application was submitted and the permit received; or

(c) The applicant is legally ineligible to possess the permit.

R657-55-8. Surrender or Transfer of Wildlife Expo Permits. (1)(a) A person selected to receive a wildlife expo permit that is also

successful in obtaining a Utah limited entry permit for the same species in the same year or successful in obtaining a general permit for a male animal of the same species in the same year, may not possess both permits and must select the permit of choice.

(b) In the event a secured opportunity is willingly surrendered before the permit is issued, the next eligible applicant on the alternate drawing list will be selected to receive the permit.

(c) In the event the wildlife expo permit is surrendered, the next eligible applicant on the alternate drawing list for that permit will be selected to receive it, and the permit fee may be refunded, as provided in Sections 23-19-38, 23-19-38.2, and R657-42-5.

(2) A person selected by a conservation organization to receive a wildlife expo permit, may not sell or transfer the permit, or any rights thereunder to another person in accordance with Section 23-19-1.

(3) If a person is successful in obtaining a wildlife expo permit but is legally ineligible to hunt in Utah, the next eligible applicant on the alternate drawing list for that permit will be selected to receive it.

R657-55-9. Using a Wildlife Expo Permit.

(1) A wildlife expo permit allows the recipient to: (a) take only the species for which the permit is issued; (b) take only the species and sex printed on the permit;

(c) take the species only in the area and during the season specified on the permit; and

(d) take the species only with the weapon type specified on the permit. (2) The recipient of a wildlife expo permit is subject to all of the provisions

of Title 23, Wildlife Resources Code, and the rules and proclamations of the Wildlife Board for taking and pursuing wildlife.

R657-55-10. Wildlife Expo Permit -- Application Fee Revenue.

(1) All wildlife expo permit application fee revenue generated by the conservation organization under R657-55-5(2) will be deposited in a separate, federally insured account to prevent commingling with any other funds.

(a) All interest earned on application fee revenue may be retained and used by the conservation organization for administrative expenses.

(2) The conservation organization may retain up to $3.50 of each $5.00 application fee for administrative expenses.

(3) The remaining balance of each $5.00 application fee will be used by the conservation organization to fund projects advancing wildlife interests in the state, subject to the following:

(a) project funding will not be committed to or expended on any project without first obtaining the division director’s written approval;

(b) cash donations to the Wildlife Habitat Account created under Section 23-19-43 or Division Species Enhancement Funds are authorized projects that do not require the division director’s approval; and

(c) application fee revenue dedicated to funding projects must be completely expended on or committed to approved projects by September 1st, two years following the year in which the application fee revenue is collected, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the division director.

(4) All records and receipts for projects under Subsection (3) must be retained by the conservation organization for a period not less than five years, and shall be produced to the division for inspection upon request.

(5) The conservation organization shall submit a report to the division and Wildlife Board each year no later than September 1st that accounts for and documents the following:

(a) gross revenue generated from collecting $5 wildlife expo permit application fees;

(b) total amount of application fee revenue retained for administrative expenses;

(c) total amount of application fee revenue set aside and dedicated to funding projects, including bank statements showing account balances; and

(d) description and records of each project funded with application fee revenue, including the date of funding, the amount of funding contributed, and the completion status of the project.

(6) An organization that individually receives application fee revenue from the expo permit drawing pursuant to a co-participant contract with the conservation organization, is subject to the provisions in Subsections (1) through (5).

KEY: wildlife, wildlife permits Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Change: November 10, 2015 Notice of Continuation: May 5, 2015 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 23-14-18; 23-14-19

Attachment 2

Project Title FY Approved Funding Source Approved Complete

2076 Hamlin Valley Habitat Restoration Project - Sagebrush Restoration Year I 2016 MDF Expo 10,000.00$

2675 McMillan Springs Phase 2 2014 MDF Expo $21,958.02

2805 MDF Stewardship Position FY14 2014 MDF Expo $30,000.00

2808 Stockton Shrub Planting 2014 MDF Expo $1,740.77

2814 Youth Outdoor Experience 2013 2013 MDF Expo 2,500.00$

2865 Wood Hollow Fire Bitterbrush Seeding 2014 MDF Expo $4,591.64

2918 Dugout Flat Reseeding 2015 MDF Expo 20,000.00$

2931 Little Mountain Bullhog 2015 MDF Expo 20,000.00$

3019 Mill Fork Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project (Phase 2) 2016 MDF Expo 2,500.00$

3120 MDF Stewardship Position FY15 2015 MDF Expo 30,000.00$

3137 Deer Fawn/Adult Survival FY15 2015 MDF Expo $22,400.00

3151 David Edwards Fencing Project 2014 MDF Expo $48,219.60

3181 MDF Statewide Water Storage Maintenance Repair Fy15 2015 MDF Expo 15,000.00$

3187 Left Fork Stewardship Project 2016 MDF Expo 40,000.00$

3234 Roughneck Vegetation Restoration (Phase II) 2016 MDF Expo 5,000.00$

3236 West Vernon Phase 5: Lion Hill 2016 MDF Expo 5,000.00$

3250 Transplant trailer for deer 2015 MDF Expo 14,000.00$

3263 Yellowjacket (Farm Canyon) 2016 MDF Expo 10,000.00$

3281 Coal Hollow, Kane County - Phase II 2016 MDF Expo 2,500.00$

3282 Sheep Creek Phase 3: Sheep Creek North 2016 MDF Expo 5,000.00$

3308 Dark Canyon Plateau Phase III 2016 MDF Expo 5,000.00$

3314 Timber Mountain Wildlife Drinker 2016 MDF Expo 2,000.00$

3321 Crouse Canyon Brows Plots 2016 MDF Expo 1,218.40$

3350 McMillan Spring Phase III 2016 MDF Expo 30,000.00$

3370 Temple Fork Juniper Restoration 2016 MDF Expo 4,250.00$

3441 Park Valley Winter Range Bullhog 2016 MDF Expo 5,000.00$

3495 Youth Education 2015 MDF Expo 25,000.00$

3496 Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement for Urban Deer Transplant 2015 MDF Expo 2,500.00$

3497 MDF Stewardship Position FY16 2016 MDF Expo 30,000.00$

3498 Outdoor Adventure Days Sponsorship 2015 MDF Expo $5,000.00

3500 Gordon Creek WMA Shrub Planting 2015 MDF Expo 12,250.00$

Mule Deer Foundation Project List

3505 Efficacy of Translocation as a Management Tool for Urban Mule Deer in Utah 2016 MDF Expo 5,940.00$

3512 Bruce Hall Hardware Ranch 2016 MDF Expo 24,369.15$

3526 Advancing Hunting and Angling Sports 2015 MDF Expo $50,000.00

3549 Utah Youth Hunter Education Challenge 2016 MDF Expo $2,500.00 $0.00

3563 Duncan Creek - Final Phase 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3568 Moon Ridge Chaining maintenance 2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3599 Flaming Gorge Bighorn Sheep Habitat Lop and Scatter; Phase 1 FY17: Carter Creek, Dowd Mountain, Hideout2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3605 Birdseye WMA Bullhog Project 2017 MDF Expo $13,600.00 $0.00

3606 Sheep Creek Phase 4 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3633 Indian Creek West Drag Chaining 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3642 Boulevard Ridge Pinyon and Juniper Removal Maintenance Project 2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3650 Warm Spring Hills Juniper removal project phase 2 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3659 Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project Phase 1 2017 MDF Expo $20,000.00 $0.00

3662 Cedar Fort Chaining 2017 MDF Expo $15,000.00 $0.00

3673 South Bookcliffs Phase 4 (Sagers) 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3674 CRO Transplants 2016 MDF Expo $1,000.00

3690 Went Ridge Guzzlers 2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3701 Hardware Plateau Lop and Scatter 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3722 Mountain Meadow Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Juniper Removal 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3742 Fish Park Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat Improvement 2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3756 Outdoor Adventure Days Sponsorship 2016 MDF Expo $10,000.00

3769 Cedar City and Summit I-15 Deer Fence and Cattle Guards 2017 MDF Expo $29,500.00 $0.00

3773 North Elk Ridge Aspen Restoration Phase II 2017 MDF Expo $2,000.00 $0.00

3774 Mormon Pasture Mountain Wildlife Habitat Improvement Phase I 2017 MDF Expo $10,000.00 $0.00

3782 Little Davenport Slashing/Lop & Scatter 2017 MDF Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3794 Paradise Valley Restoration Project 2017 MDF Expo $3,000.00 $0.00

3795 Spring City Fuels Reduction and Habitat Improvement 2017 MDF Expo $2,000.00 $0.00

3797 Willow Creek Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction 2017 MDF Expo $1,000.00 $0.00

3815 MDF Deer Transport Trailer 2016 MDF Expo $15,000.00

3823 MDF Stewardship Position FY17 2017 MDF Expo $30,000.00

3830 FY17 Effects of Habitat Treatments on Mule Deer 2017 MDF Expo $21,245.00 $0.00

3831 FY17 DeerFawn/Adult Survival 2017 MDF Expo $15,000.00 $0.00

563,872.55$ $239,910.03

Project Title FY Approved Source Approved Complete

2633 Sowers Canyon SFW Property Habitat Improvement 2014 SFW Expo 6,125.00$

2767 South Slope Feral Horse Gather 2014 SFW Expo $34,817.20

3092 Buckskin and 5 Mile Catchment Apron Repairs 2013 SFW Expo 14,148.00$

3146 Mule Deer Transplants FY13-14 2013 SFW Expo $106,430.80

3147 Youth Recruitment and retention pheasant program 2014 SFW Expo 62,413.50$

3149 Black Mesa Pond Cleaning 2014 SFW Expo 9,180.00$

3151 David Edwards Fencing Project 2014 SFW Expo $48,219.60

3156 Pahvant Deer Translocation from Parowan Front 2014 SFW Expo $59,655.00

3161 Richfield Upland Game and Waterfowl Management Project Phase I 2014 SFW Expo 13,000.00$

3186 Pahvant spring rehabilitation 2014 SFW Expo $13,635.00

3220 Wildlife Crossing US 191 mp 66-70 2015 SFW Expo $25,000.00

3236 West Vernon Phase 5: Lion Hill 2016 SFW Expo 5,000.00$

3246 Support for Congressional Sportsman's Foundation 2015 SFW Expo 50,000.00$

3397 Richfield Upland Game and Waterfowl Management Project Phase II 2016 SFW Expo 58,050.00$

3499 South Slope Feral Horse Gather Phase II 2016 SFW Expo 40,000.00$

3508 Parowan Front deer translocation 2015 SFW Expo $51,709.00

3589 Timpanogos Guzzler Project 2017 SFW Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3662 Cedar Fort Chaining 2017 SFW Expo $2,500.00 $0.00

3795 Spring City Fuels Reduction and Habitat Improvement 2017 SFW Expo $2,000.00 $0.00

3831 FY17 DeerFawn/Adult Survival 2017 SFW Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3832 FY17 Determinants of Population Growth in Utah Moose 2017 SFW Expo $5,000.00 $0.00

3848 Richfield Pheasant Project 2016 SFW Expo $47,440.56

3849 Wild Turkey Feeding SFW 2016 SFW Expo $4,503.68

Total Spent and Committed Project Funds 277,416.50$ $391,410.84

Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife Project List

Attachment 3

2017 Expo Permits by Species and ResidencyBoard Approved: 8/27/2015

Res NonRes Total

Grand Total 145 55

Species Area Condition Res NonRes Total

Bison Henry Mtns Hunters Choice Early 1 0 1

Bison Henry Mtns Hunters Choice Late (non resident only) 0 1 1

Bison Henry Mtns Cow Only Early 1 0 1

Bison Henry Mtns Cow Only Late 1 0 1

TOTAL 3 1 4


Black Bear Wasatch Mtns, West Summer, Any Legal Weapon, No Dogs 1 1 2

Black Bear La Sal Spring, Any Legal Weapon, No Bait 1 1 2

Black Bear Nine Mile Fall, Any Legal Weapon 1 0 1

Black Bear Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowitz Fall, Any Legal Weapon 1 0 1

Black Bear Bookcliffs, East Spring, Any Legal Weapon, No Bait 1 0 1

Black Bear S. Slope, Bonanza/Diamond Mtn./Vernal Spring, Any Legal Weapon, No Bait 1 0 1

Black Bear Central Mtns, Manti North Spring, Any Legal Weapon, No Bait 1 0 1

Black Bear San Juan Spring, Any Legal Weapon, No Bait 1 1 2

TOTAL 8 3 11


Buck Deer Book Cliffs, North Any Weapon 6 3 9

Buck Deer Book Cliffs, South Any Weapon 3 1 4

Buck Deer Book Cliffs Archery 3 1 4

Buck Deer Book Cliffs Muzzleloader 3 1 4

Buck Deer Fillmore, Oak Creek LE Any Weapon 1 0 1

Buck Deer Henry Mtns Premium Any Weapon 1 0 1

Buck Deer Henry Mtns Management Buck 1 1 2

Buck Deer Paunsaugunt Premium Any Weapon 2 1 3

TOTAL PERMITS

PERMITS

PERMITS

PERMITS

Buck Deer Paunsaugunt Premium Archery 1 1 2

Buck Deer Paunsaugunt Premium Muzzleloader 1 0 1

Buck Deer Paunsaugunt Management Buck 1 0 1

Buck Deer San Juan, Elk Ridge Any Weapon 1 0 1

Buck Deer South Slope, Diamond Mtn Any Weapon 1 0 1

Buck Deer West Desert, Vernon Any Weapon 4 1 5

Buck Deer West Desert, Vernon Archery 1 1 2

Buck Deer West Desert, Vernon Muzzleloader 1 1 2

Buck Deer North Slope, Summit Any Weapon 1 1 2

TOTAL 32 13 45


Bull Elk Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek/South Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek/South Any Weapon (early) 1 1 2

Bull Elk Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek/South Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Book Cliffs, Bitter Creek/South Muzzleloader 1 0 1

Bull Elk Book Cliffs, Little Creek Roadless Any Weapon 1 0 1

Bull Elk Cache, Meadowville Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Cache, South Any Weapon (early) 1 1 2

Bull Elk Cache, South Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Cache, South Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Cache, South Muzzleloader 1 0 1

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Manti Any Weapon (early) 5 2 7

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Manti Any Weapon (late) 3 1 4

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Manti Archery 4 2 6

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Manti Muzzleloader 2 1 3

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Nebo Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Central Mtns, Nebo Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Fillmore, Pahvant Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk La Sal, La Sal Mtns Any Weapon (early) 1 1 2

Bull Elk La Sal, La Sal Mtns Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk La Sal, La Sal Mtns Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Mt Dutton Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Mt Dutton Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Mt Dutton Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Panguitch Lake Archery 1 0 1

PERMITS

Bull Elk Panguitch Lake Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Panguitch Lake Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Paunsaugunt Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Plateau, Fishlake/Thousand Lakes Any Weapon (early) 2 1 3

Bull Elk Plateau, Fishlake/Thousand Lakes Any Weapon (late) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Plateau, Fishlake/Thousand Lakes Archery 1 1 2

Bull Elk Plateau, Fishlake/Thousand Lakes Muzzleloader 1 0 1

Bull Elk Southwest Desert Any Weapon (early) 1 1 2

Bull Elk Southwest Desert Any Weapon (late) 1 1 2

Bull Elk Southwest Desert Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk Southwest Desert Muzzleloader 1 0 1

Bull Elk San Juan Bull Elk Archery 1 0 1

Bull Elk San Juan Bull Elk Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk South Slope, Diamond Mtn Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Bull Elk Wasatch Mtns Any Weapon (early) 5 3 8

Bull Elk Wasatch Mtns Any Weapon (late) 3 1 4

Bull Elk Wasatch Mtns Archery 6 3 9

Bull Elk Wasatch Mtns Muzzleloader 3 2 5

Bull Elk Wasatch Mtns Multi-Season 1 0 1

TOTAL 69 22 91


Bull Moose Wasatch Mtns/Central Mtns 1 0 1

Bull Moose Wasatch Mtns/Central Mtns Non Resident Only 0 1 1

TOTAL 1 1 2


Cougar Plateau-Boulder Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

Cougar Plateau-Fishlake Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

Cougar Central Mountains, Nebo Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

Cougar Central Mountains, Northeast Manti Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

Cougar Chalk Creek/Kamas Limited Entry 1 0 1

Cougar Panguitch Lake Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

PERMITS

PERMITS

Cougar Fillmore, Pahvant Split, Limited Entry/Harvest Objective 1 0 1

TOTAL 7 0 7


Desert Bighorn Sheep Zion Non Resident Only (Early Season) 0 1 1

Desert Bighorn Sheep Kaiparowits, West 1 0 1

TOTAL 1 1 2


Pronghorn Bookcliffs, South Any Weapon 1 0 1

Pronghorn Cache/Morgan-South Rich/Ogden Any Weapon 3 1 4

Pronghorn Cache/Morgan-South Rich/Ogden Archery 1 0 1

Pronghorn Mt Dutton/Paunsaugunt, Johns Valley Any Weapon 1 0 1

Pronghorn Plateau, Parker Mtn Archery 1 1 2

Pronghorn Plateau, Parker Mtn Muzzleloader 1 1 2

Pronghorn Plateau, Parker Mtn Any Weapon 3 2 5

Pronghorn Pine Valley Any Weapon 1 0 1

Pronghorn San Rafael, North Any Weapon 1 0 1

Pronghorn West Desert, Riverbed Any Weapon 1 0 1

Pronghorn Southwest Desert Any Weapon 2 1 3

TOTAL 16 6 22


Rocky Mtn. Bighorn Sheep Box Elder, Newfoundland Mtn Any Weapon (early) 1 0 1

Rocky Mtn. Bighorn Sheep Nine Mile, Range Creek Non Resident Only (early season) 0 1 1

TOTAL 1 1 2


Mountain Goat No. Slope/So. Slope, High Uintas West 1 1 2

Mountain Goat Ogden, Willard Peak (early) Non Resident Only 0 1 1

Mountain Goat Ogden, Willard Peak (late) 1 0 1

TOTAL 2 2 4

PERMITS

PERMITS

PERMITS

PERMITS


Turkey Northern Region 1 1 2

Turkey Northeastern Region 1 1 2

Turkey Central Region 1 1 2

Turkey Southern Region 1 1 2

Turkey Southeastern Region 1 1 2

TOTAL 5 5 10

PERMITS

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor

State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110, PO Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 telephone (801) 538-4700 • facsimile (801) 538-4709 • TTY (801) 538-7458 • www.wildlife.utah.gov

MICHAEL R. STYLER Executive Director

Division of Wildlife Resources GREGORY J. SHEEHAN Division Director

[DATE]

Honorable Rob Bishop 123 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Bishop, The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is statutorily tasked with managing wildlife populations that our citizens economically and culturally depend upon. A primary objective of this mission is to recover sensitive or struggling wildlife species and prevent their listing on the Endangered Species List – this ensures that taxpayers, landowners, and businesses do not suffer the expense and inefficiencies associated with Endangered Species Act restrictions imposed by the federal government. States are best suited to manage wildlife, and we have shown our successes with the recovery efforts of species such as the Bonneville cutthroat trout. It is a costly endeavor, but one of critical importance to ensure that Utah protects its ability to manage and utilize its natural resources. In September 2014, John Morris (Founder of Bass Pro Shops) and David Freudenthal (Former Governor, Wyoming) asked business and conservation leaders to formulated the “Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources” to examine conservation funding and formulate proposals to fund fish and wildlife conservation and prevent federal listing decisions. This panel made a recommendation that Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion annually in existing revenue from the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters to the Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program. To be clear, this is not a new set of taxes, but only a reallocation of existing funds to be used in the implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans (“WAPs”). WAPs are the state level plans that are designed to prevent the threatened or endangered listing decisions that strip our state of the ability to manage our wildlife and prevent landowners and lessees the ability to utilize their property in ways they have for generations. Currently, the WAP program is drastically underfunded and in need of additional support in order to be effective. Legislation on this issue will be introduced in coming congressional sessions, and we humbly request your support. Utah’s wildlife resources - and our state’s autonomy to manage and utilize those resources – depend upon it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John Bair Chairman Utah Wildlife Board

2017 PROPOSED HUNTING MENTOR PROGRAM AMENDMENTS 23-19-1 Possession of licenses, certificates of registration, permits, and tags required -- Nonassignability -- Exceptions -- Free fishing day -- Nature of licenses, permits, or tags issued by the division. (1) Except as provided in Subsection (5), a person may not take, hunt, fish, or seine protected wildlife or sell, trade, or barter protected wildlife or wildlife parts unless the person: (a) procures the necessary licenses, certificates of registration, permits, or tags required under this title, by rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title, or by an order or proclamation issued in accordance with a rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title; and (b) carries in the person's possession while engaging in the activities described in Subsection (1) the license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag required under this title, by rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title, or by an order or proclamation issued in accordance with a rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title. (2) Except as provided in Subsection (3) a person may not: (a) lend, transfer, sell, give, or assign: (i) a license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag belonging to the person; or (ii) a right granted by a license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag; or (b) use or attempt to use a license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag of another person. (3) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the Wildlife Board may, by rule, make exceptions to the prohibitions described in Subsection (2) to: (a) transport wildlife; (b) allow a person to take protected wildlife for another person if: (i) the person possessing the license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag has a permanent physical impairment due to a congenital or acquired injury or disease; and (ii) the injury or disease described in Subsection (3)(b)(i) results in the person having a disability that renders the person physically unable to use a legal hunting weapon or fishing device; (c) allow a resident minor under 18 years of age to use the resident or nonresident hunting permit of another person if: (i) the resident minor is: otherwise legally eligible to hunt; and (A) the permit holder's child, stepchild, grandchild, or legal ward, if the permit holder's guardianship of the legal ward is based solely on the minor's age; or (B) suffering from a life threatening medical condition; and (ii) the permit holder: (A) receives no form of compensation or remuneration for allowing the minor to use the permit; (B) obtains the division's prior written approval to allow the minor to use the permit; and (C) accompanies the minor, for the purposes of advising and assisting during the hunt, at a distance where the permit holder can communicate with the minor, in person, by voice or visual signals; or

(d) subject to the requirements of Subsection (4), transfer to another person a certificate of registration to harvest brine shrimp and brine shrimp eggs, if the certificate is transferred in connection with the sale or transfer of the brine shrimp harvest operation or harvesting equipment. (4) A person may transfer a certificate of registration to harvest brine shrimp and brine shrimp eggs if: (a) the person submits to the division an application to transfer the certificate on a form provided by the division; (b) the proposed transferee meets all requirements necessary to obtain an original certificate of registration; and (c) the division approves the transfer of the certificate. (5) A person is not required to obtain a license, certificate of registration, permit, or tag to: (a) fish on a free fishing day that the Wildlife Board may establish each year by rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title or by an order or proclamation issued in accordance with a rule made by the Wildlife Board under this title; (b) fish at a private fish pond operated in accordance with Section 23-15-10; or (c) hunt birds on a commercial hunting area that the owner or operator is authorized to propagate, keep, and release for shooting in accordance with a certificate of registration issued under Section 23-17-6. (6)(a) A license, permit, tag, or certificate of registration issued under this title, or the rules of the Wildlife Board issued pursuant to authority granted by this title, to take protected wildlife is: (i) a privilege; and (ii) not a right or property for any purpose. (b) A point or other form of credit issued to, or accumulated by, a person under procedures established by the Wildlife Board in rule to improve the likelihood of obtaining a hunting permit in a division-administered drawing: (i) may not be transferred, sold, or assigned to another person; and (ii) is not a right or property for any purpose.

GARY R. HERBERT

Governor

SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor

State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110, PO Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301

telephone (801) 538-4700 facsimile (801) 538-4709 TTY (801) 538-7458 www.wildlife.utah.gov

MICHAEL R. STYLER

Executive Director

Division of Wildlife Resources GREGORY J. SHEEHAN

Division Director

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: August 25, 2016 To: Utah Wildlife Board From: Justin Shannon, Big Game Coordinator SUBJECT: Use of Public Hunters to Aid in Deer Research On the Paunsaugunt deer unit, there are areas with high concentrations of bucks with antlers that do not fully develop, branch, or form points, and these bucks retain their velvet year round (i.e. cactus bucks). We are proposing a mechanism to allow public hunters to harvest some of these animals in conjunction with DWR for research purposes. The goal is to collect biological samples from normal bucks harvested on the unit and compare them with samples obtained from cactus bucks. This will help us determine if these unique bucks have antler deformities caused by environmental factors, genetics, or exposure to diseases such as EHD. Details of the hunt recommendations will be presented.

8/22/2016

1

Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Program Coordinator

Definitions “Bait” means any lure containing animal parts larger than one cubic

inch with the exception of white-bleached bones with no hide or flesh attached.

“Cage trap” means any enclosure containing a one-way door triggered by a treadle or pan that prevents escape of an animal after the door closes.

“Foothold trap” means any underspring or jump trap, longspring trap or coil-spring trap with two smooth arms or jaws that come together when an animal steps on a pan in the center of the trap.

“Good condition” means the carcass is fresh or frozen and securely wrapped to prevent decomposition so that the tissue remains suitable for analysis.

“Owner” means the person who has been issued a trap registration number associated with one or more trapping devices.

Permanent tagging

A person may not possess a green pelt or unskinned carcass from a bobcat or marten that does not have a permanent tag affixed after the second Friday in g yMarch

Marten pelts and harvest information

Furharvesters are required to present the entire skinned carcass intact and in good condition when presented to the division for permanent tagging.division for permanent tagging.

Foothold traps

Must have spacers on the jaws which leave an opening of at least 3/16 of an inch when the jaws are closed, except

Traps that are completely submerged when under water when set

A person may not disturb or remove any trapping device, except:

the landowner where a trap has been placed the owner of a domestic pet that has been caught

8/22/2016

2

A person may not kill or remove wildlife caught in any trapping device, except:

the owner who must possess a valid permit license or tag(s) for the speciespermit, license or tag(s) for the species that has been captured a peace officer in performance of their duties

Traps may be placed near the carcass of protected wildlife provided the carcass has not been moved or relocated for the

f t i ildlif d th t ipurpose of trapping wildlife and the trap is not located within 30 feet of the carcass.

Thank You

8/22/2016

1

Utah Bobcat Management Plan

Leslie McFarlane, Mammals Program Coordinator

Bobcat Management Plan

• Plan was approved in 2007 – 2016

• Prepared by Bobcat Working Group

– (UDWR, UTA, UHA, RAC, BYU, non‐consumptive)

• DWR Internal review every 10 years

Purpose

The purpose of the Utah Bobcat Management Plan is to direct the management of bobcats (Lynx rufus) to assure the future of the species through protection, propagation and management.

While considering bobcat distribution and the intrinsic, scientific, educational, and recreational values for the citizens of Utah.

Goal

Maintain a healthy bobcat population within existing suitable habitat and provide quality recreational opportunities for bobcat harvestrecreational opportunities for bobcat harvest while considering the social aspects of bobcat harvest.

Population objective

Maintain current statewide distribution with a reasonable proportion of older age animals

Performance Targets

Variable Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Proportion of kittens and yearlings in harvest

0.49 0.42 ‐ 0.56

Adult Survival 0.68 0.65 ‐ 0.72

% Females in the harvest 0.43 0.41 ‐ 0.45

8/22/2016

2

Strategies

Maintain baseline management if ≥2 variables are within or outside the historical range in a positive direction for population growth.

BASELINE

• 6 permits per individual

• Season 3rd Wednesday in November to March 1

• No cap on permits

i. Decrease the number of bobcat permits available to individuals (1‐2 permits) if ≥2 of the performance targets are outside the historical range in a negative direction for population gro th

Permit Numbers

growth.

– Keep the number of permits available to individuals consistent with the previous year if performance target are moving back toward the historical range in a positive direction for population growth from the previous year.

ii. Decrease the length of the bobcat harvest season on the front end of the season (1‐2 weeks) if ≥2 of the performance targets are outside the historical range in a negative direction for pop lation gro th

Season Length

direction for population growth.

‐ Keep the season length consistent with the previous year if performance targets are moving back toward the historical range in a positive direction for population growth from the previous year.

iii. If all 3 performance targets are outside the historical range in a negative direction for population growth the number of permits may be capped at 80% of the number of

Permit Cap

may be capped at 80% of the number of permits sold the previous year.

‐ First‐come‐first‐serve

‐ Implemented in addition to strategies decreased permits and season length.

After a cap has been implemented the division may:

‐ begin to increase season length and

Permit Cap Continued

begin to increase season length and number of permits available per individual by 1‐2 (weeks, permits) per year toward baseline if performance targets are moving back toward historical ranges in a positive direction for population growth.

Outreach and Education

Objective 1:

Increase awareness and appreciation of the general public for the role of bobcats in Utah’s ecosystems.

Strategies:Strategies:

• Determine the public’s knowledge and attitudes towards the role of bobcats in Utah’s ecosystems.

• Develop educational programs on the role of predator/prey interactions in our ecosystems.

• Provide educational opportunities on the role and use of trapping and hounds in bobcat management.

8/22/2016

3


Objective 2:

Maintain quality hunting and trapping opportunities for bobcat.

Strategies:

• Promote ethical and legal hunting and trapping practices through the FurharvesterPromote ethical and legal hunting and trapping practices through the FurharvesterEducation Program.

• Develop incentives to help attract new Furharvester Education teachers.• Promote and develop incentive programs that encourage the reporting of violations.• Advertise monetary reward program available through UTA newsletter and the

Division Furbearer Guidebook.• UTA and the UHA will appoint a contact person for reporting violations.• UDWR will develop additional incentive programs with input from UTA and UHA.• Advertise and promote trapping “Best Management Practices” for trapping developed

by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Objective 2 Continued:

• Promote ethical and legal hunting and trapping practices through the FurharvesterEducation Program.

• Hold an annual coordination meeting that will include UDWR wildlife and law enforcement sections with the Utah Trappers and Utah Houndsmen Associations to discuss issues and solutions.

• Trappers should use the smallest trap sizes they can in order to minimize damage


• Trappers should use the smallest trap sizes they can in order to minimize damage to hounds when trapping for bobcats in areas that might also be used by houndsmen.

• Trappers should avoid using lethal sets when trapping in areas frequented by houndsmen.

• Houndsmen should avoid conflicts with trappers by avoiding running their dogs in areas that are known to be frequented by trappers.

• When hounds are caught in traps, they should be released in a way that leaves traps undamaged and trap sites undisturbed.

Outreach and EducationObjective 3:

Reduce conflicts between those involved in bobcat harvest (trappers and houndsmen) and other recreationists.

Strategies:

• Promote the setting of traps and snares away from popular hiking and recreation sites and that they should not parallel established hiking trails.

• Encourage houndsmen and trappers to avoid trapping or pursuing bobcats in highly urbanized or populated areas and popular recreation areas to avoid conflicts or capture of domestic pets.

• Trappers should avoid using lethal sets when trapping in areas where it is likely they may catch a domestic pet.


Objective 3 Continued:

Strategies:

• Recreationists have an obligation to respect the private f d h d hproperty of trappers and houndsmen. The traps,

snares, and dogs used in lawful pursuit of game are the property of trappers and houndsmen and should not be abused. If traps or captured animals are encountered they should be left undisturbed.

• Trappers and houndsmen should avoid displaying dead animals in ways that others may find offensive.

Research

Objective:

Increase base understanding and knowledge regarding bobcat populations in the state of Utah Potential research topics include:Utah. Potential research topics include:

• Population estimation

• Survival

• Population connectivity

• Identification of sources and sinks

Thank You

1

10000

12000

14000

16000

Permits Total harvest

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0.20

0.25

0.30

harv

est

Males

Females

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5

Prop

ortio

n of

h

Age (years)

Performance targets to adjust permit numbers and season dates:numbers and season dates:

Variable Target Range% Young 42-56% Adult Survival 65-72% Females 41-45

Variable 2014 2015 2016 Target

% Juvenile 46 60 62 42-56

% S i l 70 74 73 65 72% Survival 70 74 73 65-72

% Female 45 45 44 41-45

If ≥2 performance targets are within or outside of range in a positive direction for population growth:

Maintain baseline

6 Tags per individual

Season from 3rd Wednesday in November to March 1

No cap on number of permits sold

2

6 permits per individual

November 16, 2016 to March 1, 2017

No cap on number of permits sold

Beaver and Mink September 24, 2016 to April 5, 2017

Badger, gray fox, kit fox, ringtail, spotted skunk, and weasel seasons September 24, 2016 to March 1, 2017

Marten September 24, 2016 to March 1, 2017

8/22/2016

1

400

500

600

700

Sport Males Sport Females Total Sport Harvest

0

100

200

300

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

vest

Males

Females

Female proportion threshold

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Proportion of harv

Year

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

80

100

120Number of Incidents

Number Cougar Removed

0

20

40

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Unit NamePredator Mgmt(Deer/BHS/No)

2015-16permits/quota

% females

% >5 yrs old

Recommendedpermits/quota

Strategy(LE, split, HO)

Box Elder, Desert Deer/BHS 5 0% 0% 6 Split

Box Elder, Pilot Mountain Deer/BHS 6 0% 17% 6 HO

Box Elder, Raft River Deer 6 18% 45% 6 Split

Cache No 20 33% 33% 22 HO

Chalk Creek/Kamas No 8 16% 41% 10 LE

East Canyon No 6 23% 33% 8 LE

East Canyon, Davis Other 5 60% 20% 5 Split

Morgan-South Rich No 8 48% 35% 6 LE

Ogden No 14 43% 24% 13 HO

8/22/2016

2


2015-16permits/quota

% females % >5 yrs old

Recommended permits/quota


Book Cliffs, East (Renamed from Bitter Creek) Deer 29 35% 31% 29 HO

North Slope, Three Corners BHS 10 30% 22% 10 HO

North Slope, Summit/West D tt BHS 10 38% 60% 10 HODaggett BHS 10 38% 60% 10 HO

South Slope, Vernal/Bonanza/Diamond No 18 37% 29% 18 HO

South Slope, Yellowstone No 10 40% 33% 10 HO

Wasatch Mountains, Avintaquin-Wildcat BHS 15 24% 19% 15 HO

Wasatch Mountains, Currant Creek-North No 8 5% 50% 10 LE


2015-16 permits/quota % females

% >5 yrs old

Recommended Permits/Quota

Strategy(LE, split,

HO)

Central Mountains, Nebo Deer/BHS 9 35% 23% 12 Split

Central Mountains, Nebo-West Face Deer/BHS 10 39% 17% 10 Split

Central Mountains, Northwest Manti Deer 9 42% 22% 9 LE

Central Mountains, Southwest Manti Deer 5 28% 31% 5 LE

Oquirrh-Stansbury BHS 9 25% 61% 11 LE

Wasatch Mountains, Cascade BHS 5 38% 7% 5 HO

Wasatch Mountains, Timpanogos BHS 5 36% 20% 7 HO

Wasatch Mountains, West-Strawberry No 9 31% 50% 11 LE

West Desert, Mountain Ranges No 4 25% 50% 8 HO

West Desert, Tintic-Vernon Deer transplant 4 0% 33% 6 Split

Unit numberPredator Mgmt(Deer/BHS/No)

2015-16permits/quota % females % >5 yrs old

RecommendedPermits/quota


Beaver No 9 30% 12% 8 Split

Fillmore, Oak Creek BHS 12 42% 33% 12 HO

Fillmore, Pahvant No 10 36% 18% 11 Split

Kaiparowits BHS Unlimited 17% 25% Unlimited HO

Monroe No 9 22% 17% 9 Split

Mt. DuttonTransplantGoat/Deer 14 56% 40% 14 Split

Panguitch Lake No 10 21% 17% 10 Split

Paunsaugunt Deer 10 43% 50% 10 Split

Pine Valley, North No 8 20% 20% 10 HO

Pine Valley, South BHS 10 38% 13% 11 HO

Plateau, Boulder No 11 36% 33% 11 SplitPlateau, Fishlake No 12 32% 26% 13 Split

Plateau, Thousand Lakes No 4 40% 20% 4 SplitSouthwest Desert No 9 15% 31% 11 SplitZion No 20 41% 11% 18 HO

Unit numberPredator Mgmt(Deer/BHS/No)

2015-16permits/quota % females

% >5 yrs old

Recommendedpermits/quota

Strategy(LE, split,

HO)

Book Cliffs, Rattlesnake Canyon-NineMile South Deer/BHS Unlimited 0% 0% - Unlimited HO

Central Mountains, Northeast Manti Deer 10 33% 39% 13 Split

Central Mountains, Southeast Manti Deer 13 28% 23% 16 Split

Henry Mountains BHS 12 38% 15% 12 HO

La Sal Mountains Deer/BHS 15 38% 32% 15 HO

Nine Mile, North BHS 20 40% 23% 22 HO

San Juan Deer/BHS 25 38% 15% 25 HO

San Rafael BHS Unlimited 86% 33% Unlimited HO

o 2015 = 253

o 2016 = 246

o 2017 = 223

HARVEST OBJECTIVE QUOTA TOTALS

o 2015 = 207o 2016 = 249o 2017 = 299

Box Elder, Pilot

Mountain

Boundary Change

Mountain

Box Elder and Tooele counties‐‐Boundary begins at SR‐30 and the Utah‐Nevada state line; east on SR‐30 to the township line between R15W and R16W; south on this line to I‐80; west on I‐80 to Pilot Creek Valley road; north along this road to SR‐30; east on SR‐30 to the Utah‐Nevada state line. Elk hunters with this permit may hunt Nevada s portion of this interstate unit (091) and abide by Nevada laws. USGS 1:100,000 Maps: Newfoundland Mtns., Bonneville Salt Flats, Wells, Wendover. Boundary questions? Call the Ogden office, 801‐476‐2740. Nevada hunt regulation questions? Call NDOW, 775‐777‐2300.

8/22/2016

3

Limited EntryNovember 9 , 2016 through May 31, 2017

Split Limited EntryNovember 9, 2016 through February 24, 2017

Harvest ObjectiveHarvest ObjectiveMarch 2, 2017 through May 31, 2017

Harvest ObjectiveNovember 9, 2016 through November 4, 2017

Unlimited QuotaNovember 9, 2016 through November 8, 2017

Pursuit SeasonNovember 9, 2016 through May 31, 2017

Recommendations in accordance with Cougar Management Plan

All females are considered in the harvest

Age performance target extra measure on population

Increases on certain units should help address livestock depredation

8/22/2016

1

Proposed Fee Changes2016

Proposed fee changes are presented to Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), then to the Wildlife Board.

Then to the governor’s office for review and recommendation to the Legislature.

Th N l R A i i The Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee approves, modifies, or rejects the proposal.

Any committee‐approved fees are included in the annual appropriation bill and voted on by all legislators.

Fees take effect the beginning of the next fiscal year. (July 1, 2017)

Being funded primarily by anglers and hunters we try to balance fees with increasing costs of protecting fish and wildlife

We also make strategic changes to recruit, t i d ti t l d h tretain, and reactivate anglers and hunters

For 2017 we are proposing a few minor changes to the fee schedule

A relatively small amount of revenue will be generated that will help with program management

We want to encourage more youth to be in the field hunting turkeys during the general season

We consider this a recruitment tool

We propose a reduction from $35.00 to $25.00

A reduction in revenue of $20,000

The value of a 3 season permit on Limited Entry and Premium Limited Entry units is much higher than just a single season. We missed adding these the last time big game fees were updated.

Resident Premium Multi Season from $168 to $305

N id f 68 Nonresident from $568 to $1,025

Resident Limited Entry Multi Season from $80 to $145

Nonresident from $468 to $845

A net increase in revenue of $3,070

Possible new opportunity to hunt all three general elk seasons (Archery, Muzzleloader, Rifle)

We want flexibility to implement this in the future

Resident Elk Multi Season $150

Nonresident Elk Multi Season $700

Antlerless Elk Mitigation Reduction $50 to $30

A estimated increase in revenue of $90,000

8/22/2016

2

For division sponsored events, we propose allowing the division to charge variable fees that will cover the actual costs of outdoor recreation programs in supplies and materials.

Shooting Centers RV Camping Fee/Night $10 $50Shooting Centers RV Camping Fee/Night $10 ‐ $50

An estimated increase in revenue of $11,500

These new fees and minor fee adjustments will:

Potentially help recruit and retain youth

Offer new opportunity for the hunting public

Provide a small amount of needed revenue

Utah Wildlife Board Meeting Larson – SFW Troy Justensen Jeff Hartley - BGF Bill Christensen –...

Documents

Transcript of Utah Wildlife Board Meeting Larson – SFW Troy Justensen Jeff Hartley - BGF Bill Christensen –...